Sorry, no, that doesn't qualify. Your inability to be rational is not my problem.
So atheist's believe it is simpler for the universe to create itself?
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
Sorry, no, that doesn't qualify. Your inability to be rational is not my problem.
I wonder when it was that two gay brother cells did it for the first time like you and your gay brother,
Speaking of snark . . .
By
dbphoenix
Verified Purchase<--------------LOL
This review is from: Judy Garland - The Concert Years (DVD)
When I saw this show on PBS back in '85, I didn't have a VCR, and after I got one, I looked forward to the day when the show would be made available on tape. When it finally did become available, I was pretty ticked to find out that a third of it had been cut (who knows why).
When the DVD came out, I was a bit reluctant to buy it because it was so inexpensive. I figured that all that had been done was to transfer the tape to DVD. But, for the money, why not? Tapes don't last forever. So I went ahead and gave it a shot.
I am both surprised and pleased, therefore, to announce that the DVD is in fact the complete broadcast, just shy of 90 minutes, not just a transfer of the tape, which is only 59 minutes, and the quality is everything you'd expect from a DVD.
Understand, though, as has been noted in other reviews, that this is called The Concert Years for a very good reason: the emphasis is on Judy's concert performances, not her movie roles. Therefore, there are very few movie clips. Likewise, this is not a biography, though there is a fairly liberal sprinkling of biographical material along with archival footage that you probably will not have seen elsewhere (such as her first appearance on film at age 7).
Unfortunately, very little was filmed of her concerts. It is amazing to me that, given the popularity of TV by the mid-fifties, it never occurred to anybody to capture some of these performaces, not just on television, but on broadway (imagine having a professional film of the Carnegie Hall performance). Therefore, the "concert" footage used is mostly from her television show which, granted, did try to recreate to a large extent the concert experience and did run during the middle of her concert years.
However, with only a couple of exceptions, whoever put this together exercised excellent judgement and chose those performances which show Judy at her best, e.g., Ol' Man River, Chicago, Smile, As Long As He Needs Me. And, yes, the DVD is worth buying just to get her "little tramp" performance of Over The Rainbow, performed in concert.
The point of the whole thing is to show how Judy performed in front of a live audience, and the DVD does just that.
This is the real deal, all almost-90 minutes of it. And there's stuff here you won't find anywhere else. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Report abuse | Permalink
I find it entertaining that the troll who lies on just about every thread about science accuses me of lying... .yet will not be able to point to one lie I have created. You seem to be aggravated by the fact that I state there is no science showing that life evolved from non life.
Or that there is no science showing man made co2 created warming on earth.
Yet... instead of producing science you just call me a liar.
But, we know you won' t produce any of the science requested above because I am telling the truth.
So lets look at your big claim...
F.C. are you so unstable that you think that taking a study with thousands of papers and only looking at 75 out of 77 of them actually equals an 97% consensus for all 10000 papers?
you don't really think that is the truth and those who tell you its a lie... are the liars... do you?
If you do... you need heavier meds.
Or that there is no science showing man made co2 created warming on earth.
Yet... instead of producing science you just call me a liar.
But, we know you won' t produce any of the science requested above because I am telling the truth.
So lets look at your big claim...
F.C. are you so unstable that you think that taking a study with thousands of papers and only looking at 75 out of 77 of them actually equals an 97% consensus for all 10000 papers?
you don't really think that is the truth and those who tell you its a lie... are the liars... do you?
If you do... you need heavier meds.
Last edited:
and I thought you were just associating him with judy garland because you were saying he was the sort of guy who loves bette midler and show tunes.
but... you were not joking around... .
now I am wondering did fc really "experiment" with his brother..
but... you were not joking around... .
now I am wondering did fc really "experiment" with his brother..
By
dbphoenix
Verified Purchase<--------------LOL
This review is from: Judy Garland - The Concert Years (DVD)
When I saw this show on PBS back in '85, I didn't have a VCR, and after I got one, I looked forward to the day when the show would be made available on tape. When it finally did become available, I was pretty ticked to find out that a third of it had been cut (who knows why).
When the DVD came out, I was a bit reluctant to buy it because it was so inexpensive. I figured that all that had been done was to transfer the tape to DVD. But, for the money, why not? Tapes don't last forever. So I went ahead and gave it a shot.
I am both surprised and pleased, therefore, to announce that the DVD is in fact the complete broadcast, just shy of 90 minutes, not just a transfer of the tape, which is only 59 minutes, and the quality is everything you'd expect from a DVD.
Understand, though, as has been noted in other reviews, that this is called The Concert Years for a very good reason: the emphasis is on Judy's concert performances, not her movie roles. Therefore, there are very few movie clips. Likewise, this is not a biography, though there is a fairly liberal sprinkling of biographical material along with archival footage that you probably will not have seen elsewhere (such as her first appearance on film at age 7).
Unfortunately, very little was filmed of her concerts. It is amazing to me that, given the popularity of TV by the mid-fifties, it never occurred to anybody to capture some of these performaces, not just on television, but on broadway (imagine having a professional film of the Carnegie Hall performance). Therefore, the "concert" footage used is mostly from her television show which, granted, did try to recreate to a large extent the concert experience and did run during the middle of her concert years.
However, with only a couple of exceptions, whoever put this together exercised excellent judgement and chose those performances which show Judy at her best, e.g., Ol' Man River, Chicago, Smile, As Long As He Needs Me. And, yes, the DVD is worth buying just to get her "little tramp" performance of Over The Rainbow, performed in concert.
The point of the whole thing is to show how Judy performed in front of a live audience, and the DVD does just that.
This is the real deal, all almost-90 minutes of it. And there's stuff here you won't find anywhere else. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Report abuse | Permalink
No, atheists don't say that. All we say is that based on current evidence, we don't really know how the universe began. The big bang, although conceptually very hard to comprehend, it does seem to hold up pretty well with the rest of our evidence based understanding of time and space so for now that's what we're going with. Science evolves, and what we know about the universe evolves with it.
What atheists don't do is just make stuff up to fill in the unknowns though like religious people do. Neither atheists nor theists know what happened in the beginning, but only theists are arrogant and childish enough to pretend they do.
The whole, I don't know so it must be God is how a child mind thinks. Grow up people. There's no more evidence for God than there is for Santa Claus. Join the 21st century please...
What atheists don't do is just make stuff up to fill in the unknowns though like religious people do. Neither atheists nor theists know what happened in the beginning, but only theists are arrogant and childish enough to pretend they do.
The whole, I don't know so it must be God is how a child mind thinks. Grow up people. There's no more evidence for God than there is for Santa Claus. Join the 21st century please...
that is a reasonable position to hold for you. But until about 10 years ago... we heard many scientists and atheists stating we got here by random chance.
We heard the silly statement about monkeys and random chance... but then science got smarter..
for instance...
from wikipedia...
1. Probabilities[edit]
However, for physically meaningful numbers of monkeys typing for physically meaningful lengths of time the results are reversed. If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably minute.
Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinksexponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 2620 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 1028). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small as to be inconceivable. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[note 3] Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946,[note 4] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10360,783.[note 5]
Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need a ridiculously longer time - more than three hundred and sixty thousandorders of magnitude longer - to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 universes made of atomic monkeys.[note 6] As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability ofHamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[3]
In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long.[note 7]
We heard the silly statement about monkeys and random chance... but then science got smarter..
for instance...
from wikipedia...
1. Probabilities[edit]
However, for physically meaningful numbers of monkeys typing for physically meaningful lengths of time the results are reversed. If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably minute.
Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinksexponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 2620 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 1028). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small as to be inconceivable. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[note 3] Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946,[note 4] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10360,783.[note 5]
Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons no longer exist), they would still need a ridiculously longer time - more than three hundred and sixty thousandorders of magnitude longer - to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 universes made of atomic monkeys.[note 6] As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability ofHamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[3]
In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long.[note 7]
2. and with respect to universe we also know that the standard model of physics presents a universe so finally tuned... that one of the explanations for that fine tuning could be a Creator.
see Dr. Susskind at about 6 minutes. (and I can present dozens of top scientists saying the same thing. God... is one of possible explanations for the fine tunings... and the others take faith.
see Dr. Susskind at about 6 minutes. (and I can present dozens of top scientists saying the same thing. God... is one of possible explanations for the fine tunings... and the others take faith.