*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Pink-Floyd-and-Syd-Barrett-Story

I have a difficult time counting this album as within the Pink Floyd discography. Sure, it's the music of Nick, Dave, and Roger, but this sounds more like the aftershocks of The Wall and the fallout within the band that it precipitated.

Just as Rick and David played on Syd Barrett's solo album, "Barrett," I see this as Nick and David playing on Roger's solo album, "The Final Cut."

And while I love Pink Floyd (from Piper, to Saucerful, to Atom Heart Mother -- maybe parts of Umma Gumma -- to Meddle, to Animals, to Dark Side, to the Wall, et. al.), I have little tolerance for any of the band's solo material, including Rogers', in which I count this particular music.

I'd like to say to Roger, someday, "For gosh sakes, man, wasn't the double-album, gigantic stage show, and feature film enough to get the message across? You didn't have to try to make a sequel out of it, did you?"

>> ^wormwood:

Wow! I had no idea this existed. Great find, and super cool. The video really opens up the atmospheric music and personal lyrics of this material, which is otherwise some of Floyd's least accessible. The "Not Now John" segment was actually on rotation as a single video on Mtv at the time--I remember seeing it in high school. I suppose this entire short film was also shown there at least once around that time too.
BTW, Rick Wright doesn't play on this album at all--Waters fired him during the making of The Wall and did not invite him back for The Final Cut (though Wright did play at the Wall concerts). Sadly, his name should probably be removed from the tags, just as the man has now been removed from our lives. RIP. :-(

Thanks TRB! And here's to Jack.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Just listened to the Jack Layton musical tribute on CBC radio. Had to hear this one again. *promote

Whoa, this guy is like the 1950's Syd Barrett.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I love Pink Floyd's music but, watching people try to dance to this was really funny.
I know what you mean about it being a different band, I would've loved to have seen them from Syd Barrett up to The Wall but, not now. No offense to the loyal fans of the name Pink Floyd but, the band Pink Floyd ended (for me) with Roger Waters leaving. Mostly because that's when I came into it, when Roger Waters was the main force. Some might argue that the Syd Barrett era was the best Pink Floyd and while I like the music from that particular line-up, the 1st Pink Floyd album I heard and loved was post Syd Barrett. I didn't even know Syd Barrett's name until well after Animals came out.


Syd Barrett wasn't what made the band famous or even good for that matter. When Roger Waters was the creative leader of the band, that's when they made their best music. I'm not saying that it was Waters alone—in fact I'm not a fan of his solo stuff—but the stuff they came out with when he was at the helm was and is Pink Floyd. Anybody who says it was Syd Barrett is just being a hipster-esque Floyd fan. Anybody that says their best work came in the 80s, needs arsenic.

I love Pink Floyd's music but, watching people try to dance to this was really funny.
I know what you mean about it being a different band, I would've loved to have seen them from Syd Barrett up to The Wall but, not now. No offense to the loyal fans of the name Pink Floyd but, the band Pink Floyd ended (for me) with Roger Waters leaving. Mostly because that's when I came into it, when Roger Waters was the main force. Some might argue that the Syd Barrett era was the best Pink Floyd and while I like the music from that particular line-up, the 1st Pink Floyd album I heard and loved was post Syd Barrett. I didn't even know Syd Barrett's name until well after Animals came out.

Ta Skeeve!

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
*quality

pseudo-science? Hmmm, consider your source...

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm <http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm>

but my personal favorite is this Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ <http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/>

also

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

all that to say is I would not put much worth in that site :-)

I'd rather relying on scientists, researchers, chemists, toxicologists, etc... all professionals who have published studies in peer reviewed journals. But if you think that represents pseudo-science, then it is a sad day for critical thinking.

>> ^teebeenz:

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
>> ^notarobot:
I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

I'm also wondering how this can be real because the 50cal rounds are very rarely used in rifles. Though I may be incorrect in this sense, I have never seen an old-fashion-designed and styled 50cal bolt-action rifle like the one this guy has. There are 2 50 cal sniper rifles that I know of... the Barrett M82A1 rifle is one I learned of some time ago to be an anti-device rifle, used for picking off devices from long range. The other is popularized by various video games like BF2, CoD4, MW2, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 -- the M95.

To add also into the doubting mix is the fact that a youngster like him would be holding a weapon that can FIRE a 50cal round. I won't be surprised by people holding something that can fire NATO rounds. But a rifle that fires a 50cal? Sorry, my expectations for those capable of firing a 50cal round from a rifle is someone in uniform and one who has had years of marksman training.

yeah seriously. I'm now almost 30, still a huge music nerd. One of the only bands I have ever really disliked is Phish. To this day I think Phish are one of the worst bands ever. Nuff said, hippies (and this coming from someone that listens to Syd Barrett, Parson Sound, Faust, Can and all sorts of weird... "hippy" stuff, but still dislike Grateful Dead as well.)

There is nothing in these articles about men acting logical and going into problem-solving mode, rather that they have a more activated fight or flight response and women a more empathetic response. Read the article and you will see that you are going way too far in your conclusions (http://www.cfn.upenn.edu/perfusion/stress.pdf).

A quote from the article:
"Similarly, the present finding of greater prefrontal and limbic activation in males and females respectively should not be implicated with the sex stereotype in lay culture for the “emotional women” and “rational men”. As suggested by several studies, the gender difference in emotionality per se may be an ill-posed question (Barrett et al., 1998; Fischer, 1993)." (p. 18, Wang, et al, unknown year).

The stress test was also counting backwards from 1600 by subtracting 13. Not very similar to sitting in a car when a tornado comes. As a bonus there were no differences in performance between women and men, meaning men did not perform better! Don't quote popular science bro. Go straight to the source

That said there are obvious differences in our brains, but we do not know enough yet to claim what you do. >> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^LarsaruS:
My really long post...

Women of the sift. Does this offend you more or less than Westy's comment. Vote now, cos I think it might be close.

I was not out to put down females and if my comment came across like that then I was not clear enough, my bad.
I was simply talking about the biological differences in how males and females think, see links (first 3 things I found but there is a lot of research on this subject being done), due to being different, biologically, and having evolved with different pressures acting on us. It is not strange that we think differently and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Why do males go into "problem solving mode" and not "feeling mode" IMO? For example when a sabre toothed tiger pounces you you have to act rationally and solve the problem, if you cower in fear you get eaten. Evolution favoured the clearheaded, fast thinking and problem solving minds of the male hunters over the ones who were slower on the uptake or felt first and acted second.
Different roles (think hunter/gatherer times) --> Different brains --> Different thought patterns.
Otherwise every single person in the world would think exactly the same way.
http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm (2005)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm (2008)
(even has a video but I can't seem to embed stuff, oh well)

>> ^Djevel:
>> ^cybrbeast:
. EOD are not snipers!

From what I understand, EOD personnel are trained in the use of the Barret for long range explosive detonation.

I guess you're right

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/barrett-sniper-rifle.php
However I doubt they would have the skill and endurance of real snipers. And it's still ridiculous that the British special ops were taken out like pansies and couldn't even repair their own tire.

[Nerd]

In MW2, the sniper possibly only has an edge on the consoles because of the 1 hit kill factor. As you can see from the video he frequently misses, more than enough time for a pc player to line up his sights and kill you. Anything you can see and shoot at using a sniper rifle, you can see and shoot at with another gun (except for pistols).

Reload time + time to line up reticle during sway = death. I use the barrett in-game for fun, have the fall camo on it (250+ headshots) - but when I want a higher K:D I go for the other guns.

[/Nerd]

>> ^mentality:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
But the longest range sniper kill ever recorded was not fired from a Barrett, which has never held that distinction.
It was from a McMillan Tac-50, in fact it broke the record twice on one day in the hands of the PPCLI. Prior to that the record was held by an American sniper using a modified .50 Browning machine gun.

That's because the M95 is used as an anti-materiel rifle, not an anti-personnel rifle.


When it was initially introduced it was supposed to be used as an AMR, correct. Even then it was used as an anti-personnel rifle though. There was some confusion at that time about how the Geneva Convention and other treaties against the use of certain weapons against people applied to .50 BMG rounds, currently it is considered that these treaties do not apply so it's role is officially as a multi-purpose rifle.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
But the longest range sniper kill ever recorded was not fired from a Barrett, which has never held that distinction.
It was from a McMillan Tac-50, in fact it broke the record twice on one day in the hands of the PPCLI. Prior to that the record was held by an American sniper using a modified .50 Browning machine gun.


That's because the M95 is used as an anti-materiel rifle, not an anti-personnel rifle.