Wow. Surreal. At 0:21 there's a bang that seems to correspond to the halves of the tree smacking back together. It might be a coincidence with something that's happening off-screen, but it does seem to convey the magnitude of the murmuration.

Not really sure what the point here is.
"Ramblings of a Mad Man." The ramblings don't even correspond to what is going on....

Hey Newtboy,

God provided four major lines of evidence so that you would know that He exists. The first is Creation itself:

Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

His existence is so evident from the Creation that He considers that people are without excuse for their unbelief.

A quick science fact for you:

The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, and the Sun is 400 times farther away from the Moon. This is the reason they appear to be the same size in the sky. The Moon is also receding from the Earth at a few centimeters at year. This would mean it is only a “coincidence” that we happen to live at a time that the Sun and Moon have an exact correspondence in the sky, making solar eclipses possible. Yet, the scripture says God created the Sun and the Moon for signs and seasons, for days and years. The amount of “coincidences” really adds up to an absurdity when you study the conditions necessary for us to be here. You can find a good study on that here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0

The other lines of evidence are your conscience, the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and bible prophecy. I understand, perhaps, where you’re coming from. It very much has to do with what your worldview is. If you start apriori with the idea that there is no supernatural and no divine being, you won’t recognize the evidence right in front of your face. You will instead embrace alternative explanations for the origins of life which appear to be pragmatic but start with a greater amount of faith required than a belief in an all powerful Creator God.

What a pleasant correspondence. /s

And no one is saying "free speech" is a presiding factor here. In any event, I wasn't talking about "Trance" being right wing, I was bringing up a longer, more insidious, problem on this site. In fact, that point was for people who've been here much longer than you have.

And, yes, trying to get this video flagged is definitely censorship. You just don't like the content of the video. Admit it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

videosift.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of Viacom Inc. (Viacom). Under penalty of perjury, I assert that I am authorized to act on behalf of Viacom, the owner of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice, and that the information in this notice is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

A search has detected that your web site, videosift.com, is hosting and/or linking to material that infringes Viacom’s exclusive rights in copyrighted work(s). The information provided below is a non-exhaustive, representative list of the Viacom copyrighted work(s) infringed by videosift.com, as well as the links and/or URLs corresponding to each listed infringement.

I have a good faith belief that the Viacom copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice of infringement has not been authorized for use or distribution via videosift.com by Viacom, its agent or the law. Therefore, I request that you immediately remove or otherwise disable access to the infringing material identified in this notice, and cease and desist from any further infringement of Viacom’s copyrighted work(s).

In complying with this notice, videosift.com should not destroy any evidence which may be relevant in a lawsuit relating to the infringement alleged, including all associated electronic documents and data relating to the presence of the infringing items on videosift.com, which shall be preserved while disabling public access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the contrary.

Nothing in this notice shall absolve you of any affirmative obligation to prevent or limit the infringement of Viacom’s exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) irrespective of whether you receive a notice of infringement for a specific work. Moreover, this notice is not intended as a full statement of the facts, and does not constitute a waiver of Viacom’s right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any unauthorized or infringing activities occurring on your network or site. All such rights, as well as claims for any other relief, are expressly reserved by Viacom.

If you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:

Sincerely,

Brad Bo
On behalf of Vobile as an agent for Viacom
2880 Lakeside Drive, Ste 360
Santa Clara, CA 95054
v: (408) 217-5000
agent@viacom.copyright-notice.com


Infringed Viacom property and URL/location of infringing content to be disabled or removed:
ColbertReport

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT


*kill

You'd need to have either the right types of atom or electron energy level transitions that correspond to ... well, how many colours do we want? I can't be bothered putting in the work to find out if that's true about air.

I look forward to hearing from our Sift correspondent.

Well, there's been one at HSU in Humboldt, California for nearly 20 years. I don't think it does what this guy says, I think it's a cell tower. It's not hidden or very well protected, right on the road with a short chain link fence.

Why won't "X" answer my angry questions about their tree-tower? Must be a conspiracy and it must be a spy tree then, able to read 100% of your digital correspondence....or maybe they just don't want to answer questions about proprietary technology from a non-credentialed internet 'reporter' with a theory.

And mainstream media's self censorship continues
http://www.alternet.org/media/msnbc-correspondent-i-was-canceled-because-i-criticized-networks-pro-israel-coverage

Interesting : http://www.straight.com/blogra/689256/nbc-reverses-decision-pull-correspondent-ayman-mohyeldin-gaza
"It's safe to say that Glenn Greenwald is probably the most influential journalist in the world these days."

President Obama at White House Correspondents' Dinner has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

upvote for "lighter mouth feel".
They should have also made an N2O version for a 'heavy' or 'full bodied' beer (with corresponding lower voices, which does happen with N2O).

@chingalera Pretty much what newt said about tables turned and you crying foul. I have witnessed it many times with you over the years. I do not know you but I " Know " you and I do not like you and last night I had the displeasure of again reading a lazy suzan style emotion. I ignore you out right because I have the personal opinion that any genuine correspondence is not worth the time or effort, To be honest when I see that little email pop up I delete it, when I log in I have you on ignore so I just delete that too, I really do not care what you have to say. It is harsh but simplistic really.

Hope that answers your question, sorry Sift for shitting in the comment thread. One of those situations where - yea I got to express myself, but all in all it was not constructive.

So, the judge can't declare a mistrial if s/he suspects jury nullification? Like in the extreme case presented where jurors ignore DNA and video evidence and just decide to vote not guilty anyway? That's a little scary, especially considering the double-jeopardy rule.

I imagine if you were on a jury, convincing all the other members to nullify would be extremely difficult. It seems much more likely to result in a hung jury except in the most extreme cases (like the slavery and lynching examples provided in the video).

Also, in California at least, jury nullification has itself been "nullified"--judges can remove from the jury any member that indicates they will not give a verdict that corresponds to the facts of law involved in the case.

See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

"They don't all agree with it, which is why it's not science."

If anyone is looking for absolute certainty, they should turn to their priests, their gurus, their investment brokers, their politicians, their snake-oil salesmen.

The only absolute certainty science can provide is in proving a wrong. Everything else is probabilities and exclusions, all the way to the end.

The fact that the public expects a proof of absolute certainty of a positive is maddening to me. Any assumed equivalency between "not knowing for sure" with "not knowing anything" is frustrating to no end.

Scientists have to enter the public arena and proclaim certainty to match the public's vernacular. If they were to stick to probabilities the way they do within their own realms, they'd fail to communicate the essence of their findings. Just look at how warped the common understanding of "theory" has become.

----------------------------

"Consensus, I repeat, is not science."

Everything scientific that is being communicated publicy is a consensus. The fact that statements of less than absolute, unanimous consensus are met with suspicion and a diminishment of trust in the process itself is one of the reasons why science cannot be properly discussed on the public stage. They cannot present the fuzzy edges of their findings as that would require a qualification in the form of probabilities. A consensus, the greatest common denominator if you will, is the best that can be done. The IPCC's reports are a magnificent illustration of that very issue.

And why can't we talk about the fuzzy edges? About scenarios and their corresponding probabilities? Because people are suspicious, even scared of numbers. Math as a subject is made fun of, a lack of mathematical understanding has become something to be proud of. An intuitive understanding of probabilities is the exception, not the norm. As soon as a prediction doesn't come true, people tend to dismiss the underlying theory, without any regard to the previously attached probability.

That's the climate the scientists have to endure when trying to present their work to the public.