i think you've clearly missed the point of the various holy books. theyre not science books. theyre not history books. its no different than taking any philosophical or theological book, ancient or modern, and calling bullshit on account of it not mentioning some far off nebula as if that means anything as it pertains to philosophy and/or theology

"why not mention something like, 'god created the stars, including the sun'? then people would be like oh, all those points of light are just different versions of our sun" why not? because what the hell does that have to do with the philosophical nature of the scriptures?

again, you want it to be a science book but its not and why should it be?
>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^shimfish:
Err...except for all the times the bible mentions stars, which, of course, we used to actually see at night.
Were you expecting a postscript along the lines of "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
>> ^Mcboinkens:
This is one of my biggest conflicts with religion. Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon.


Errrrrr.......you clearly missed the point of my post. No mention of anything humans didn't already know about. If I created a full-fledged universe, I'd definitely hint at the fact that there were other things outside of the Earth, Moon, and points of light that are blatantly obvious. Also, it seems to differentiate between the Sun and stars. Why not mention something like, "God created the stars, including the Sun"? Then people would be like oh, all those points of light are just different versions of our Sun. "In 1600 A.D., Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy, for asserting that the Sun is a star, among other things. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, after the work of Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, and finally, Friedrich Bessel, that it[meaning the sun was a strar] could be proven. The distance to other stars was calculated, and it was found that stars were about as bright as the Sun, when you account for the difference in distance. Also, chemical composition and surface temperature could be determined, and this added further evidence."
It mentions Pleiades and Orion, both of which received there name prior to when the book of Job was written, so no credit there. Besides, those are just constellations.
Why would you not expect any sort of indication that space was bigger than we though? Why leave us in the dark? Why not reveal that the Earth is a globe and not a flatland, like it implies when it mentions the four corners?
"The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)
The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)"
A mention of dirt, but not gas? It just bugs me that the only things mentioned were the things that were already known about.

[redacted]

They forgot to mention that all action scenes must take place at sunset, and all night time scenes must have tons of blue anamorphic fucking lens flare all over the goddamn place.

Google Video? Shouldn't this be dead by now?

That's not a veiled complaint about the video, seriously just surprised this is working. Don't have an hour and a half to watch it right now.

edit: Apparently Google cancelled the whole sunsetting and I missed it. Guess that means I can undead a couple of my videos that I marked preemptively.

This makes it seem like the horse travelled off into the sunset and lived happily ever after. I'm sure they found him and put him down. Hopefully the owner wasn't there when they did.

Does the lightbulb count? It provides so much more productive hours after sunset.

Yeah! And why do people like watching sunsets and smelling flowers? Idiots...>> ^westy:

I have nothing against making a rocking piano and might be fun to Evan have a go on .
but i dont what compels "artists" to say dumb shit.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Estuffing17" title="member since May 2nd, 2010" class="profilelink">Estuffing17
Actually, because visible green light is at a higher energy level than red light, if an objects energy gap is high enough to let green light through, then red light will also pass through because it has even lower energy levels, not the other way around.
That's exactly what I said in my example.
As far as a translucent green material is concerned, when we perceive an object to have color, it is because that objects atoms are arranged in such a way that it reflects that wavelength of light (green in this case) back to our eye, while either absorbing, refracting or letting pass through photons of other wavelengths. Just because a piece of glass is green does not mean it will not allow other higher and lower energy photons to pass through it.
Green glass, as I understand it, is green because it's filtering out other colors. It's a simplified example, yes. Obviously you can have a little yellow or blue or whatever mixed in and it still looks "green".
But the energy gap explanation seems to mean that "green" glass would be letting all red, orange, and yellow light through since they are lower energy levels. It's one thing to say a little bit of another color is coming through and it's imperceptible. If all the "weaker" colors are coming through along with the green, it doesn't seem to me like it would look very green.


All the light at all the energy levels will pass through the material, you're right. But the extra bit that makes this make sense is that this isn't the only thing happening. You've seen a simple explanation of one thing. The other wavelengths of light are passing through the material, but not all in a straight line. Their paths are diverted and dispersed so you don't get a meaningful amount of these wavelengths of light entering your eye.

This is the reason the sky is blue. Light is refracted by particles in the substance through which it is traveling. The closer the wavelength of the light is to the particles it's being refracted by, the more it's course is altered. The blue end of the spectrum has the closest wavelength to the size of particles in the air.

When you look at the sky with your back to the sun, the light that makes it to your eyes will obviously have had to have it's path altered a lot by the particles in the air. Only the wavelengths that are closest to the size of the particles in the air will be altered this much, hence the sky looking blue.

The lower the sun, the more air there is for the light to pass through and the more the other wavelengths will be refracted. At midday on the equator the sun in a white dot surrounded by blue. There isn't enough air between you and the sun to cause anything other than the blue light to be refracted back to your eye, so if you're not looking at the sun (not good...) you're only going to see blue. At sunset there is a lot more air between you and the sun, enough for the longer wavelengths to be affected, hence the red colours spreading away from the sun causing the firey sunsets we all love.

So, to sum up; just because all the wavelengths of light can pass through something it doesn't necessarily follow that they aren't affected in any way at all. They can pass through but have their paths altered, hence the different colours you see.

I'd love a fuller explanation of this. How do the particles affect the protons? What makes them alter course?

Very well said. Thanks for taking the time to explain the difficult position of seeing the irrational behavior in others and how that can tend towards a feeling of personal superiority. Modesty, while ideal, can be difficult to maintain.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

*dupeof=

Sorry...this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/After-Sunset-Making-love-in-a-Vienna-subway.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

1. Chrono Trigger (0:00)
2. Super Mario Allstars (0:07)
3. Legend Of the Mystical Ninja (0:13)
4. Hagane (0:19)
5. Axelay (0:25)
6. Romance of the Three Kingdoms 3 (0:31)
7. Pilotwings (0:37)
8. Super Punchout! (0:43)
9. Wild Guns (0:49)
10. Secret of Mana (0:55)
11. Super Double Dragon (1:01)
12. Earthbound (1:07)
13. Addams Family (1:13)
14. Actraiser (1:19)
15. Biker Mice from Mars (1:25)
16. Aliens vs Predator (1:31)
17. Breath of Fire (1:37)
18. F-Zero (1:43)
19. Gradius 3 (1:49)
20. Megaman 7 (1:55)
21. Super Star Wars (2:01)
22. Rock'n Roll Racing (2:07)
23. Pocky & Rocky (2:13)
24. Legend of Zelda - Link to the Past (2:19)
25. Prince of Persia (2:25)
26. Bust A Move (2:31)
27. Out of this World (2:37)
28. Super Metroid (2:43)
29. Blackthorne (2:49)
30. Animaniacs (2:55)
31. Street Fighter 2 (3:01)
32. Secret of Evermore (3:07)
33. Super Mario World (3:13)
34. Sparkster (3:19)
35. Demons Crest (3:25)
36. Aladdin (3:31)
37. Final Fantasy 3 (3:37)
38. Castlevania X (3:43)
39. Final Fight (3:49)
40. Donkey Kong Country (3:55)
41. EVO (4:01)
42. Starfox (4:07)
43. Super Adventure Island (4:13)
44. Flashback (4:19)
45. Sunset Rider (4:25)
46. Shadowrun (4:31)
47. Final Fantasy 2 (4:37)
48. Indiana Jones Greatest Adventures (4:43)
49. Lufia 1 (4:49)
50. Kirbys Dream Land 3 (4:55)
51. Joe & Mac (5:01)
52. Magical Quest Starring Mickey Mouse (5:07)
53. Killer Instinct (5:13)
54. Super Bonk (5:19)
55. Ninja Warrior (5:25)
56. The Lost Vikings (5:31)
57. Harvest Moon (5:37)
58. Spiderman VS Venom (5:43)
59. Lion King (5:49)
60. Super Castlevania (5:55)
61. Super Mario RPG (6:01)
62. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV - Turtles in Time (6:07)
63. Kirbys Avalanche (6:13)
64. Contra 3 (6:19)
65. Mortal Kombat 2 (6:25)
66. Super Turrican 2 (6:31)
67. Tiny Toon Adventures (6:37)
68. X-Men (6:43)
69. Megaman X 1 (6:49)
70. Super Mario World 2 (6:55)
71. Battle Toads & Double Dragon (7:01)
72. Tales of Phantasia (7:07)
73. NBA Jam Tournament Edition (7:13)
74. Tetris Attack (7:19)
75. Stunt Racer FX (7:25)
76. Super R-Type (7:31)
77. Ninja Gaiden Trilogy (7:37)
78. Earthworm Jim (7:43)
79. Dragon View (7:49)
80. Yoshis Safari (7:55)
81. Sim City (8:01)
82. King of Dragons (8:07)
83. Super Offroad (8:13)
84. Madden 95 (8:19)
85. Super Bomberman (8:25)
86. Tetris & Dr. Mario (8:31)
87. Mario Paint (8:37)
88. Arkanoid 2 (8:43)
89. Final Fantasy Mystic Quest (8:49)
90. Cybernator (8:55)
91. Cool Spot (9:01)
92. Super Mario Kart (9:07)
93. Death and Return of Superman (9:13)
94. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Tournament Fighters (9:19)
95. Soul Blazer (9:25)
96. Super Ghouls & Goblins (9:31)
97. Zombies Ate My Neighbors (9:37)
98. Darius Twin (9:43)
99. Captain Commando (9:49)
100. Lemmings (9:55)

This happened to me in Sunset Beach, one of California's unincorporated counties where there is no police department, only a sheriff with a chip on his shoulder and money in his pockets from the locals.