I know it's Colbert's shtick and I never really got into it, but still...

"I have friends who live and work in London. They said "don't worry,we're very sensible people."

What's sensible for people in London might not be sensible for people in Salford. Or Boston. Or Wolverhampton. London, or the South-East in general, is as representative of the UK as the East/West Coast is of the US.

The hinterland has been drained at the expense of the center, on both a global and a national scale. If you live and work in the City of London, things might look quite ok, and whatever issues there are only need some reforms to no longer be an issue. But if your factory, the factory that provided jobs for the people in your home town, closed down ten, twenty years ago and now the best you can get is zero-hour contracts, then no, things are not ok.

People up top keep telling you that the economy is growing, that everyone's gonna be better off, that it's ok for multinational corporations and rich individuals to optimise their taxes, while they cut your welfare. Banks get a bailout, you get to pay the bedroom tax.

So no, your sensible friends, if they exist, live in a different universe than many of their countrymen. That's the disconnect we've been talking about.

-----
"The British economy is tanking. The pound has plunged to its lowest level since 1985... The Dow lost 611 points."

Again, so what? If the economy is growing and it has no effect on you, why should you give a jar of cold piss about the value of the pound or the stock exchange? Arguably, a drop in the exchange rate of the pound makes it easier for you to export your goods and raises the prices for imports, thereby encouraging you to produce the shit yourself. The UK does have a sovereign currency, unlike the Spanish, the Greeks, the Portuguese or the Italians who have to suffer internal devaluations, because Wolfgang Schäuble says so.

"Equity losses over $2 trillion"

Why should that matter? QE has pushed up stock prices beyond any resonable level, so what meaning do these book values hold? Not to mention that a lot of people made a shitload of money by shorting these stocks, including George Soros against Deutsche.

"There'll be no more money"

QE never trickled down anyway, makes no difference. Corbyn's people call their version "QE for the People" and "Green QE" for a reason: the previous version was only meant to prop up banks and stock values.

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

On a more general note, the hatred, the racism, the xenophobia... in most cases, it's a pressure valve. You leash out against someone else, you need someone to blame. The narrative is that we're living in a meritocracy, which makes it your fault that you didn't inherit an investment portfolio. So you start blaming yourself. You're a fuck-up. You worked hard and not only didn't climb the ladder, you actually went down. There's depression for ya. Guess what happens if someone, a person of perceived authority, then comes along and tells you it's not your fault, it's the fault of the immigrants. That narrative is very appealing if history is any indication. Even the supposedly most prosperous country in the EU, Germany, has the very same issue in the eastern parts, where there is no hope for a meaningful job.

People need work, meaningful work. Wanna guess how many of those "xenophobes" would be out in the street protesting against immigrants if they had a meaningful job with decent pay? Not to many would be my guess.

So the likes of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are providing the narrative. But the lack of social cohesion is a result of market fundamentalism, of Thatcherism, of Third Way social-democrats leaving the lower half of the income distribution to the wolves. You can't exclude large swaths of the population from the benefits of increased productivity, etc. Social dividend, they called it. It's what keeps the torches and pitchforks locked away in the barn.

I don't think I've read something so imbecilic in quite a while. I actually started quoting you to point out all the ridiculous contradictions in your statements but then realized that, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong".

I'll simply say this: purporting to know something, while simultaneously claiming that no one could possibly know that thing, is an excellent example of intellectual dishonesty, which you demonstrate with an impressive level of obliviousness.

As far as I understand the psychological reasoning behind this, it is the same as a well known effect in the area of suicides which in Germany we call Werther Effect after a novel be Wolfgang Goethe (published 1774), which caused a number of "copycat suicides".

It seems to me that a potential spree killer is desperately trying to be noticed by society either out of personal, religious or political reasons.

If you show such persons that they will get noticed, that they will get there 15 minutes of fame, it might push them a closer to the realization that committing mass murder is a way to be "noticed".

Here we go, level 2.

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

"I can understand German as well as the maniac that invented it, but I talk it best through an interpreter."
- A Tramp Abroad

“Those who know nothing of foreign languages know nothing of their own.”
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

WOLFGANG ON YOUR BITCH ASS KOFI

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

sifted because atara posted Dinosaur Ballet which only uses the opening 40 sec, before the orchestra comes in, and i thought someone might like to hear the rest.

from the wiki:
The Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major (K. 488) is a musical composition for piano and orchestra written by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It was finished, according to Mozart's own catalogue, on March 2, 1786, around the time of the premiere of his opera, The Marriage of Figaro. It was one of three subscription concerts given that spring and was probably played by Mozart himself at one of these.

The second, slow movement, in ternary form, is impassioned and somewhat operatic in tone. The piano begins alone with a theme characterized by unusually wide leaps. This is the only movement by Mozart in F sharp minor. The dynamics are soft throughout most of the piece. The middle of the movement contains a brighter section in A major announced by flute and clarinet that Mozart would later use to introduce the trio "Ah! taci ingiusto core!" in his opera Don Giovanni.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chorus choir ps22 phoenix wolfgang amadeus' to 'chorus, choir, ps22, phoenix, wolfgang amadeus' - edited by eric3579

If you're near London, I suggest you hit the Imperial War Museum. They used to have the rudder of a Bf 110 on display the last time I was there (maybe 2004), don't know if they still do. It's not just any Bf 110 though, it's the plane of Major Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer with all the kills marked on it: 164 night sorties, at least 114 four-engined bombers destroyed (Halifax, Wellington, Stirling, Lancaster). On 02/21/45, between 20:44 and 21:03, he shot down 7 Lancasters.

Just to illustrate that at night, even the cumbersome Bf 110, He 219 and Ju 88 could slice through bomber squads like cheese. It's a good thing that neither Messerschmitt nor Focke-Wulff nor Henschel could build a proper two-engined fighter like the Mossie or P38 or else the losses would have been even more horrible than they were already.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'amadeus, salieri, composer, death, god' to 'wolfgang amadeus mozart, salieri, composer, death, god, tom hulce, F Murray Abraham' - edited by maatc

1. I like to think I make the internets a better place by submiting quality videos (because everyone needs an excuse for wasting all that time on one site)
2. sometimes I do fall for that "who'll submit this digg-ed video first" frenzy. it's that feeling you get when you beat Zifnab to the ZPR embed... not that I ever did, but it's the best example of what I'm trying to say. especially in the beginning when climbing the vs hierarchy was still fun (cause with each step you got new *toys, of course). but often it's not even intentional. I just happen to spend a lot of time browsing different video aggregators but I never post videos only because they're popular and I know they might get a lot of votes.
3. I post videos on topics I feel are not represented enough on the sift and/or stuff I like but nobody else seems to appreciate.
4. yes, I do. my themes are:
- flying (also an almost childish fascination with jet fighters)
- jazz musicians I really like
- good slovenian music
- other stuff that originates from my local background, geographicaly or otherwise; anything from music, cinema, arts to interesting sights... also a lot of Slavoj Žižek
5. not intentionaly. but then, maybe my videos do describe me better than my balkan english ever could (I feel awkward using english, that's why I usualy keep my comments short:)

Gary Valente is my idol.

The other soloist is Wolfgang Pushnig on alto sax.

when I expressed the desire for such a channel back then I figured there's more jazz/blues/folk lovers here. I've got a few clogging up my pqueue now with little chance of getting those 10 votes. kinda sad to look at, really. specialy since those are all songs and artists I love:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Wolfgang-Haffner-Crusin
http://jazz.videosift.com/video/Keith-Jarrett-Somewhere-Over-the-Rainbow
http://jazz.videosift.com/video/Marcus-Miller-Steveland
http://jazz.videosift.com/video/Marcus-Miller-Bruce-Lee-liveTokyo-Jazz-2005

some just made it through though:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Vlatko-Stefanovski-Miroslav-Tadic-amazing-guitar-duet
http://www.videosift.com/video/Marcus-Miller-Live-Under-The-Sky-91
http://www.videosift.com/video/Terrafolk-Shetland-Folk-Festival-2007
http://www.videosift.com/video/Perpetuum-Jazzile-Cudna-Noc-Strange-night
http://www.videosift.com/video/Aboriginal-singer-Geoffrey-Gurrumul-Yunupingu
http://www.videosift.com/video/Lee-Ritenour-George-Duke-Marcus-Miller-Its-On
http://www.videosift.com/video/Katalena-Da-gora-ta-Skarbinina
http://www.videosift.com/video/Iggy-PopGoran-Bregovic-In-the-Death-Car
http://www.videosift.com/video/Moon-River-Lalo-Schifrin-with-Maribor-philharmonic
http://www.videosift.com/video/Emir-Kusturica-The-No-Smoking-Orchestra-Unza-Unza-Time
http://www.videosift.com/video/Katalena-Ta-lipovska-Gda-se-dragi-v-Ameriko-odpravla
http://www.videosift.com/video/Katalena-Karizmatix-Pastire-Mlado
http://www.videosift.com/video/Terrafolk-Anja-Bukovec-live-Krianke-Ljubljana

thanks to all who voted for them

Awesome clip!

The jam session bits were recorded in 1995 at the "Cafe Eckstein" in Berlin, together with german rocker Wolfgang Niedecken of BAP.

From springsteenlyrics.com:
"On 09 Jul 1995, Bruce joined German rocker Wolfgang Niedecken and his Leopardefell Band at Cafe Eckstein, Berlin, Germany, to record a video for HUNGRY HEART. One of the numerous (seven) takes of the song played during that gig was officially released later that same year on the Hungry Heart [Berlin 95] EPs that were released in Europe, Japan, and Australia. Amazingly, this released version featured Bruce's live vocals from the Eckstein gig just mixed into the original 1980 E Street Band instrumental of the song. The video, with that same bizarre audio, was also released later on the on The Complete Video Anthology / 1978-2000 DVD."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
(1749-1832)
A Tale of Horror