Your video, Snake vs Lizard-Nat Geo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Joyce is an ex farmer and one of the National party contributions to the Liberal/National coalition government at the moment. Blunt is probably a mild way to describe him. Another way would be remove the "bl" and replace with "c"... ; )

But yeah, this is another storm in a teacup caused by some dickhead saying something perfectly reasonable in the most creepy and unreasonable way possible.

A simple statement such as: "Mr Depp brought two dogs in without observing Australian quarantine regulations and has been notified that if he doesn't remove them within the next 50 hours, the dogs will be confiscated and unfortunately will need to be destroyed."

Taadaa, crisis fucking averted...

Joyce isn't sucking up to constituents, he's just being his usual charming self. The Nats are borderline irrelevant in this country now apart from making up the balance so the Liberals can actually manage to go toe to toe with Labor (the leftist party). Most Australian's saw this as Joyce being a colossal douche even while recognising that Depp did the wrong thing.

ps. Oliver is also completely wrong about the baby koala. You see those cold black eyes, dolls eyes? And you know how everything over here basically wants to murder the shit out of you in horrible ways? Tread warily lest you wake the sleeping giant...

You make me taste like a nat-ur-al chicken!

I think she does it here because that is her experience -- to random people that she meets, they immediately identify her as "Asian", but nothing more specific than that. Plus, the talk seems to be delivered to a group of mostly, well, Asians. There are massive cultural differences between subgroups for sure, but on the other hand I'm sure they do share some common experiences due to being someone readily identifiable as "Asian" in a Western country.


...And I think you're wrong about no-one referring to Germans, French, Italians, English, etc. as "Europeans". I think LOTS of Americans do that if they see someone who is white and doesn't have an American accent, but they can't identify their particular home country.

And as an example on the other side of the coin, as a white American living in Thailand, I get Thais asking me these same sorts of questions ALL THE TIME. "Where are you from", etc., just like Nat described as happening to Asians in the west. Heck, in Thai the word for any western foreigner (non-Thai) is "farang", which most likely has roots in the way Thais heard and tried to repeat the word "France" as said by early French visitors, who were some of the first westerners to visit the country. In Thai, "France" is said like "fah-rang-sey" or "fah-rang-set", and most people think that the word "farang" for any westerner comes from that. So, if I go out with my British friends, the Thais will refer to all of us as "farang", which is basically like calling us "Frenchie". My Brit friends tend to take a bit more offense to that than I do...

But in all seriousness, I don't find being called a "farang" offensive. It is basically never meant as an insult, and in my opinion westerners calling Chinese / Japanese / Thai "Asian" isn't either. It can get annoying, but annoying isn't exactly the same thing as offensive.

Great talk. I love Nat, she's genuinely funny.

I have to say that it surprises me to hear her refer to "Asians" as a single group. There are massive cultural differences between Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Thais, etc. No-one refers to Germans, French, Italians and English as "Europeans".

I also don't really think there's anything wrong with making fun of your culture. Many of my favourite comedians do that all the time (Dylan Moran and Billy Connolly for example). There's a world of difference between recognising and laughing at your own cultural quirks and making racist stereotype jokes.

"Arguments for" an idea are worthless. "Evidence" is what is needed, and there simply isn't any provided here.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

:That's not even addressing the straw man at the very beginning. That's not a binary question being asked.:

I think it is addressing the presuppositions of naturalism mainly:

nat·u·ral·ism
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: naturalism
1.
(in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.
2.
a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

You could expand the question to include many conceptions of God, or something supernatural, but essentially the argument is dealing with a being which is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle, and read numerous scientific publications monthly, and because I didn't get my science training from Wikipedia, the worst place to try to learn something because it can be changed by those with an agenda and no knowledge.

Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...erosion, for one, happens at it's own rate each time depending on uncountable factors. Differing geologic forces act in concert on differing geologic features to change the rate at which features are made/changed. That means that there is NO uniformitarianism as described...except to a quite small extent in the lab where ALL other things are equal. That's probably why they never mentioned it in any of the numerous geology classes I took, nor from my uncle, nor in Science, nat. geo., Scientific American, etc..
I imagine you know about it because you have been told it can be used as a tool to try to debunk geology, and as an anti-science guy you grabbed onto it without understanding.
Once again, there are certain processes that happen at certain rates, like the decay of radioactive materials down to their bases, usually lead. That is not the same as saying all features are created at the same rate, which you suggest uniformitarianism claims. EDIT: apparently that IS what uniformitarianism claims, and why it was discarded as a hypothesis in the early 1800's, it was wrong in it's basic assumptions.
None of it has a thing to do with a landslide, which is what the video describes. Not a whit.
I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?

EDIT: I hope I can be forgiven for not knowing every discredited theory from the late 1700's.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Science' to 'Air Traffic, Europe, visualization, europe 24, nats' - edited by eric3579

Nat Geo puts out such trash these days. Even the Discovery Channel does better nature documentaries. Where'd they get that narrator; was if from Talk Soup on E! or from the Animal Planet ('I used my phone to videotape my dog acting neurotically') network?
David Attenborough might die early just so that he can roll over in his grave at this crap.

..and octopus don't have "tentacles". They have arms, eight arms.

Similar issue in Australia, only the single entity that owned every copper cable in the country (was post master general, then renamed to telecom, then sold off privately as Telstra), owns all of the major TV rights for cable shows (discovery, nat geo etc...), still owns all of the copper lines, and the telephone exchanges, and the pits/ducts....

They have a wholesale side of the company where they are forced by law to allow other service providers access to the infrastructure to sell services on via unbundled local loop (ULL) or line sharing services (LSS).

LSS services are basically telstra renting out everything to the service provider at cost, and a small premium. So they take all the profits, and make it neigh impossible for anyone else to compete with other providers.

ULL services are telstra giving access to just the copper pairs, service providers come in with their own equipment in the headend. The other providers still must pay rent, and line rental fees to telstra.

Imagine then, how these other companies can compete at a retail service level, against the company that owns all the lines?

They can set their prices as high as the competition regulator will allow them (which in a vast majority of the access undertaking costs, is FAR above what it actually costs telstra themselves), and then sell those same services to its retail arm for less than they charge their competition....they can price match and reap way more profits, or undercut them and drive the competition out of the market!!

Competition came in the 90's in the form of an HFC rollout by Optus, but every street Optus went down with HFC, Telstra followed them, the very next week, making their rollout far less lucrative (ie. not commercially viable).

The practice was ruled anti-competitve and telstra got fined heavily for it. Doesnt matter, it stopped anyone else from wanting to roll out an HFC network ever since.

Recently it has come to a head, Telstra have been forced to vertically seperate their wholesale and retail arms, the prices they set have been capped lower on the wholesale side, they cant over-quote competitors for access over what they provide their own retail arm....but thats not enough.

Noone can run out fibre, cause telstra own all the pits and pipes.

So...the government has stepped in, in the past 4 years or so, created a government owned company called NBNco (National Broadband Network Company), to buy up all the copper lines, rip them out, and roll out fibre to 93% of homes using GPON FTTH technology.

The opposition (who will likely win the coming election) wants to tear this apart. The very same people who set up the rules and regulations and sold off telstra into private hands, and made this mess in the first place, wants to go back on relying on private industry to upgrade this - a critical service infrastructure - which has already shown to be a COMPLETE failure in the past.

I hope that whoever wins, this NBN stays....wholesale competition has never ever worked for national infrastructure. Never, in any country.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Tree-climbing-pro-Nat-Geo-photog-gets-shot-of-a-lifetime
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Rare-Wilson-s-Bird-Of-Paradise
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-craziest-birds-ever

Tree-climbing pro, Nat Geo photog gets shot of a lifetime has been added as a related post - related requested by grinter.

The Rare Wilson's Bird Of Paradise has been added as a related post - related requested by grinter.

The craziest birds ever! has been added as a related post - related requested by grinter.

Congratulations! Your video, Tree-climbing pro, Nat Geo photog gets shot of a lifetime, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

On this vid: http://videosift.com/video/Tree-climbing-pro-Nat-Geo-photog-gets-shot-of-a-lifetime when I clicked on the comments button, rather than scrolling down to the comments, Everything up to the bottom 20% or so of the video disappeared up under the mouse-over menus and I couldn't get it back, like the centre panel had scrolled under it, but wouldn't scroll back. I opened a duplicate window and tried again, and this the whole video was gone, leaving only the "From YT..." description on down visible under the mouse-over menus. I haven't been able to duplicate it again.

I'm using Chrome on Win7 64-bit.