Your video, RoboCop Movie Clip: "I like it." --Emil, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Yes, and that is the point. If Geology worked like that it would be scientific nonsense, and it does work like that. The stratigraphic position is determined by the index fossils and radiometric dating. The age of the index fossils is determined by the stratigraphic position and radiometric dating. Radiometric dating itself is "checked" by stratigraphic positioning. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

On the other side the date is determined by the uniformitarian assumptions about radioactive decay rates in the past, and many other things. It assumes, among other things, that the rate will never change. As I showed in my reply the Bicyclerepairman, the rates can indeed change.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

Now this is the intellectually dishonest part. They say they can't choose where a fossil will be, but they have already the determined that the presence of certain fossils and radiometric dating igneous layers above and below it determines the age of that layer. They don't choose where a fossil is, but they do choose what the age of the layer is that contains the fossil based on their assumptions. So they are basically saying that radiometric dating and stratigraphy is validated by index fossils and radiometric dating, and vice-versa.

The date that is returned is indeed chosen by the scientists as it is based on uniformitarian assumptions that they've made about the past. Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but there is nothing about the rock which reveals its age. They use the secondary evidence of how much radioactive decay of certain elements they believe have occurred, but if the rates aren't always constant, the measurement is worthless. As I showed in my reply to Bicyclerepairman, even secular scientists have acknowledged the rates can change. Therefore it is unreliable on its own, and what is essentially happening is that they are propping up one unprovable assumption with the evidence interpreted through another unprovable assumption.

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time. Most of the contention comes down to how fast or slow certain geological features take to form. Scientists have staked all of their modern research on the theory of deep time, and they interpret all of the evidence through that conclusion. In other words, it has become conventional wisdom..IE, dogma. Please read my reply to Bicyclerepairman to see how bias effects interpretation.

If you examine the history of science, you will see that scientists have had it wrong many times and wasted decades and decades of research on things ultimately proven to be false. The near universal agreement of scientists on any issue is not any indicator of truth.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint. Your dismissal of the material as "non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms" flatly shows your intellectual incuriousity, not even having looked at it. Dr. Emil is an accomplished geologist and his discussion is framed in the terminology and methodology used in that field. If you want to debate this subject, you should at the bare minimum understand the basics of the position you are defending and the position you are arguing against. Also, the video is about 1 hour with 30 minutes of questions.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If you can show deep time is false, then all of it crumbles.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's interesting you're still inventing reasons why you shouldn't watch the video. You don't know anything about the man but you make wrongheaded assumptions about him. Such as that he converted because he had doubts about the evidence in Geology not holding up. Yet, that isn't the reason he converted, and it had nothing to do with his work as a geologist. Your conclusions here are evidence of non-scientific thinking.

Strange:

Recent Searches
rape, sugar, csardas, penis cam, Where is Superman, rhapsody in blue, spin, porno films, flash, after hours, Johnson automotive, emile, hotgirls sexy movies nipple boobs celebrities actresses kissing girls pakistani, mario bros, vagina cam, tango, Sixty Symbols, tear jerker, Noam Chomsky, sexual positionsiu

Emile Hirsch, of all people, wrote what I thought was a damn good article on HuffPo called "Farewell, Christopher Hitchens".

Emile Hirsch, of all people, wrote what I thought was a damn good article on HuffPo called "Farewell, Christopher Hitchens".

Running has produced a lot of really good people over the decades. I wish that were more celebrated rather than how hard or vicious someone can destroy their opponent.

People such as Derartu Tulu who twice tried to help Paula Radcliffe (3 time NY Marathon Winner) who was falling behind the leader pack. Eventually Paula told the older Tulu to go on without her, so she caught up with the head pack and won the New York Marathon herself and met Paula at the finish.

Or Emil Zatopek who gave one of his Gold Medals to Ron Clarke (the guy in the video) who was known as a choke artist for never winning gold in the commonwealth games and getting beaten by runners not as good as he was. Emil gave him a package when Ron visited him in Prague and told him "You've deserve it" and when Ron got home he found it was one of Emil's Gold Medals.

There are tons of these super cool stories of runner sportsmanship because running brings people together...go for a run.

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Drivers mentioned in youtube description: Ari Vatanen Walter Rohrl Stig Blomqvist Hannu Mikkola Colin McRae Marcus Grönholm Gigi Galli Sebastien Loeb Jari-Matti Latvala Petter Solberg Gilles Panizzi Mads Östberg Michèle Mouton Leszek Kuzaj Emil Triner
From what I know none of them drove Porsche for rallies, maybe Walter Rohrl drove on (tarmac) tracks. Other than that, I can't help you here unfortunately. Maybe you figure it out and let me know.>> ^Enzoblue:

Awesome sift. Wish the drivers named where there though. I recognized some, but really want to know who was driving the red porsche through the 8:00 min. That guy had skillz.

Well, the decay of power is one thing that makes the current grid bad. There are others, I'm sure, but I can't name any. The point is, though, that this solution won't necessarily come from the power company. It'll come from consumers who will see this as a way to reduce their energy costs, with a one-time investment that will pay for itself over time.

Once they have power generating capabilities in their own home, and they see they can make as much as they need and then some, the next logical step is to try to sell the excess back to the grid. There are ways of doing that today with solar and wind, but they usually require installing an expensive replacement to your current electricity counter (the exact name of the device escapes me at the moment .

The power companies themselves might see this as a more economic way of producing power than building a nuclear power plant, or a coal one. Distributing these in neighborhoods across a city lets you avoid massive blackouts by one power plant going down, like what happened in New York a while back, increasing the survivability of the grid as a whole. I'm in IT, so we're always thinking about Single Points of Failure in a network

The battery ownership approach reduces the price of the car, because you don't need to buy a battery with the car. Electric cars and plug-in hybrids cost as much as they do because of the battery, not because the car is infused with gold. Buying just a car and a subscription for monthly "eMiles", to use Agassi's term, gives you the benefits of the electric car without the cost of buying a battery. Batteries also decay over time, meaning buying the battery with the car (like in the Chevy Volt) would either require replacing the battery every few years, or driving less and less on the pure electric mode.

The smart grid is necessary. It will save money, it will give power companies options they never had before in terms of power management, and it will let end users generate power and reduce their bills by installing green energy producing equipment on and in their homes. It's the only thing that will let us move away from coal burning plants, nuclear plants and the rest of the deal-with-the-devil type of power generation we have today.

I'm sort of enjoying this too... It's not often that I get a chance to actually discuss this topic and articulate my point of view. Keep it going!
>> ^Stormsinger:
This is getting interesting now. I'd rate this discussion quite a bit higher than the video.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the decay during transmission was estimated at 7.2% back in 1995 (and unlikely to have gotten worse). That's a lot better than when I had expected, and doesn't supply much reason to convert to a new technology.
I've heard a bit about the battery ownership approach (undoubtedly from one of the sifted vids), and that may well offer a solution for the first two issues. It doesn't strike me as helping price, though. We'll see.
I'm far less enthusiastic about using car batteries for grid storage. That sort of aggregated solution has been proposed in other areas. The ones I'm familiar with were mainly IT-related, like using local hard-drives in a company's workstations to store backups. So far, I haven't heard of one example that didn't have serious issues. Admittedly, electricity is fungible, while data is not. But I still think control and coordination is likely to make it unfeasible. Think about the start of rush hour...all those cars that were making up a shortage get pulled off the grid in a very short time. That sort of scenario would make temporary shortages even worse, not better.
It probably -can- be done. I'm less sure it can be done efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. My own prediction is that the approach won't account for more than a miniscule fraction of storage. I'd put my money on non-battery storage, either gravitational or thermal.

Embarrassed by history.

Here is a link to the full text and English translation of "The Road to Resurgence" written by Hitler, at the request of wealthy far right industrialist Emil Kirdorf.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1878145

It costs. (I had a print copy stashed away somewhere. Can't seem to find it, sry.)

------


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkirdorf.htm

Kirdorf, who held extreme right-wing political views, first heard Adolf Hitler speak in 1927. He was so impressed that he arranged to meet Hitler at the home of Elsa Buckmann in Munich. Although Kirdorf supported most of Hitler's beliefs he was concerned about some of the policies of the Nazi Party. He was particularly worried about the views of some people in the party such as Gregor Strasser who talked about the need to redistribute wealth in Germany.

Adolf Hitler tried to reassure Kirdorf that these policies were just an attempt to gain the support of the working-class in Germany and would not be implemented once he gained power. Kirdorf suggested that Hitler should write a pamphlet for private distribution amongst Germany's leading industrialists that clearly expressed his views on economic policy.

Hitler agreed and The Road to Resurgence was published in the summer of 1927. In the pamphlet distributed by Kirdorf to Germany's leading industrialists, Hitler tried to reassure his readers that he was a supporter of private enterprise and was opposed to any real transformation of Germany's economic and social structure.

Kirdorf was particularly attracted to Hitler's idea of winning the working class away from left-wing political parties such as the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party. Kirdorf and other business leaders were also impressed with the news that Hitler planned to suppress the trade union movement once he gained power. Kirdorf joined the Nazi Party and immediately began to try and persuade other leading industrialists to supply Hitler with the necessary funds to win control of the Reichstag.

------



------

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers.

...

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

-------

Ah, much better sang in Swedish =) I grew up watching this show and reading Astrid Lindgren's books! Emil of Lönneberga is another favorite of mine.

Le Moribond

Adieu l'Émile je t'aimais bien
Adieu l'Émile je t'aimais bien tu sais
On a chanté les mêmes vins
On a chanté les mêmes filles
On a chanté les mêmes chagrins
Adieu l'Émile je vais mourir
C'est dur de mourir au printemps tu sais
Mais je pars aux fleurs la paix dans l'ame
Car vu que tu es bon comme du pain blanc
Je sais que tu prendras soin de ma femme


(Chorus)
Je veux qu'on rie
Je veux qu'on danse
Je veux qu'on s'amuse comme des fous
Je veux qu'on rie
Je veux qu'on danse
Quand c'est qu'on me mettra dans le trou


Adieu Curé je t'aimais bien
Adieu Curé je t'aimais bien tu sais
On n'était pas du même bord
On n'était pas du même chemin
Mais on cherchait le même port
Adieu Curé je vais mourir
C'est dur de mourir au printemps tu sais
Mais je pars aux fleurs la paix dans l'ame
Car vu que tu étais son confident
Je sais que tu prendras soin de ma femme
(Chorus)


Adieu l'Antoine je t'aimais pas bien
Adieu l'Antoine je t'aimais pas bien tu sais
J'en crève de crever aujourd'hui
Alors que toi tu es bien vivant
Et même plus solide que l'ennui
Adieu l'Antoine je vais mourir
C'est dur de mourir au printemps tu sais
Mais je pars aux fleurs la paix dans l'ame
Car vu que tu étais son amant
Je sais que tu prendras soin de ma femme
(Chorus)


Adieu ma femme je t'aimais bien
Adieu ma femme je t'aimais bien tu sais
Mais je prends le train pour le Bon Dieu
Je prends le train qui est avant le tien
Mais on prend tous le train qu'on peut
Adieu ma femme je vais mourir
C'est dur de mourir au printemps tu sais
Mais je pars aux fleurs les yeux fermés ma femme
Car vu que je les ai fermés souvent
Je sais que tu prendras soin de mon ame
(Chorus)

here is a (fairly close) translation:

The Dying Man

Goodbye, Emile, you were my good friend
Goodbye, Emile, you were my good friend, you know
We sang together of the same great wines
We sang together of the same great women
We sang together of our shared sorrows
Goodbye, Emile, I'm going to die
It's difficult to die in the Spring, you know
But I'm going to the flowers with peace in my heart
Because I know that you are a good man, good as white bread
You'll take care of my wife after I'm gone


(Chorus)
I want everyone to laugh
I want everyone to dance
I want everyone to party like a bunch of fools
I want everyone to laugh
I want everyone to dance
When they come to put me in my grave


Goodbye, Father Priest, I liked you well enough
Goodbye, Father Priest, I liked you well enough, you know
We weren't always on the same side
We didn't always take the same path
But we were both looking for Heaven just the same
Goodbye, Father Priest, I'm going to die
It's hard to die in the Spring, you know
But I'm going to the flowers with peace in my heart
Because you were her Confessor
I know you'll take care of my wife when I'm gone
(Chorus)


Goodbye, Tony, I didn't like you too much
Goodbye, Tony, I didn't like you too much, you know
It's killing me to be dying today
While you are so vigorous and full of life
And stronger even than boredom itself
Goodbye, Tony, I'm going to die
It's hard to die in the Spring, you know
But I'm going to the flowers with peace in my heart
Because you were her Lover
I know you'll take care of my wife when I'm gone
(Chorus)


Goodbye, my wife, I love you still
Goodbye, my wife, I love you still, you know
But I'm taking that trip to see the Good Lord today
I'm taking the trip before you do
But we all take that trip when we must
Goodbye, my wife, I'm going to die
It's hard to die in the Spring, you know
But I'm going to the flowers with my eyes closed, once more
And because I closed them so many times before
I know you'll take good care of my heart
(Chorus)

The incident highlighted the growing divergence between the means available to the police and the offensive and defensive technologies employed by criminals. Video footage of the incident clearly shows police pistol bullets striking the suspects with little or no effect, largely due to the body armor worn by the suspects. Their body armor was able to stop the .38 caliber and 9 mm projectiles fired by the officers' service handguns.

The ineffectiveness of the pistol rounds in penetrating the suspects' body armor led to a trend in the United States towards arming selected police patrol officers with .223 caliber/5.56 mm AR-15s semiautomatic rifles. This provided first responders with greater ability to effectively confront and neutralize heavily armed and armored criminals.

Advocates of gun control in the United States cited the incident as evidence that U.S. gun control laws were inadequate to prevent military-class weaponry ending up in the hands of prior felons. Opponents of gun control counter that as the weapons had been obtained illegally, the incident did not indicate that criminal use of legally registered fully automatic firearms was a problem.

The LAPD patrol officers were not adequately armed or protected to deal with such criminals. The gunmen were firing rifle rounds from illegally-modified fully automatic assault rifles while being protected by full body armor. The officers' handguns and shotguns could not penetrate the suspects' armor, while the suspects' weapons were capable of severely wounding officers and bystanders through cement walls and automobiles.

The North Hollywood shootout was an armed confrontation between two heavily-armed and armored bank robbers (Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Dechebal Matasareanu) and patrol and SWAT officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on February 28, 1997, at a Bank of America teller-office.

The shootout resulted in the wounding of fourteen people (twelve police officers and two civilians) and the deaths of both bank robbers. Although only the suspects were killed, the sheer number of injuries made this one of the bloodiest single cases of violent crime in the 1990s, and one of the most significant single bank robberies of the 20th century.

The Weapons
Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu had a large array of firearms, which included:

o HK91: Used by Phillips as he fired at officers on the left side of the bank, the rifle itself took a hit to the bolt guide rails, which caused little damage.

o Type 56 Assault Rifle: Used by Phillips after discarding the HK91, as he started the escape. The rifle jammed.

o AK47s: Both Phillips and Matasareanu used these rifles during the robbery.

o Bushmaster AR15: Matasareanu retrieved this rifle from the trunk of their getaway car after sustaining a leg wound. He then waited in the car for Phillips, while shooting through the windows. This was also the rifle used by Matasareanu as he was engaged in his last shootout with SWAT officers.

o Beretta 92 9mm pistol: Phillips committed suicide with this weapon after sustaining several gunshot wounds.

Facts
* Approximately 370 LAPD officers were called to the scene.

* Other than the LAPD, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and units of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) responded to the scene. In the MVP documentary film, the LAPD sergeant being interviewed discusses the roles of those agencies as well as LA Airport PD, Burbank PD and LA School PD. Off-duty LAPD officers came in prior to the announcement of city-wide TAC-ALERT, which activates all personnel on duty. Members of the LAPD training at the Valley area police academy as well as the main LA police academy located in Elysian Park also responded. SWAT officers also responded from the police academy. One response was from Chief Willie Williams, who came from Parker Center, the LAPD's headquarters, located downtown.

* The following year, seventeen LAPD officers were awarded Medals of Valor from the department for their actions and bravery during the shootout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_hollywood_shootout


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i34fbTMEius The video is from the film adaptation 44 minutes : North Hollywood Shootout - "Based on a shocking true story, 44 MINUTES recounts a fateful day in the life of several LAPD officers. In the summer of 1997 in North Hollywood, two wild gunmen with AK-47's began an assault on dozens of defenseless policemen. The results were tragic, but in the midst of the madness several well-trained and heroic individuals rose to the challenge, saving innumerable lives in the process."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362389/

"Emile Cohl was one of the fery first to explore the possibilities of stop-motion animation through a world of fantasy, poetry and humor.
"The Hasher's Delirium - Le Rêve D'un Garçon De Café" illustrate the surealistic visions of a man under the influence of alcohol.(France)"