Awesome! I wanna see.

Just like this, or the single piece version? This, as far as I can tell, is just a realistic 3d render of something he hasn’t made (yet). I like the double helix effect.

That must have cost them quite a pretty penny. The artist has the shape copywritten and trademarked I believe, both the physical and digital versions, and he sells the regular 30cm tall tabletop version for $1900.00!

I hope your neighbor didn’t copy his design without paying him a royalty, that could get really expensive.

Says the dumb fuck who didn't graduate 8th grade, just like his pa and paw paw.

118F, Bob. Shouldn't be over 40F. All time highs broken world wide daily...but nope, Bob knows better than everyone with his 80 IQ and D average through middle school. You are such a dumb fuck it's amazing. I bet you also insist trickle down works for the poor, cigarettes aren't addictive and don't cause cancer, and the sun revolves around the earth carried in a flying chariot. Leave the science to people with brains, please. You only force us to ridicule you when you pretend to know or even understand it.

No Bob. All is lost now thanks to fucking idiotic morons like you.
We have tipped some tipping points, started the natural feedback loops that signal the end of our opportunity to control the changes, there is now no avoiding severe climate change that civilization will not survive, likely humans won't survive at all.

Yes, Bob, actually ALL experts, including UN experts, agree. Climate change isn't a theory, it's reality. It's unavoidable. Now, it's likely unmitigateable and unsurvivable. Your video was from 3 years ago and was overly optimistic then, assuming we would lower emissions rather than ramp them up, things are exponentially worse today because instead of curtailing our emissions we've increased them to over 36.5 BILLION tons per year...if forests were all healthy at 1900 levels they could absorb 7 billion tons, but thanks to deforestation and droughts, that's cut in half or worse. Same goes for the carbon sinks in the ocean, they were absorbing around 7 billion tons a year, now heat and acidity have all but stopped them from absorbing CO2 and destroyed the most diverse ecosystems underwater.
Estimates are 1600 billion tons of carbon are stored in permafrost as methane, which is 25 times as damaging as CO2 in the short term. That's >40 times the carbon humans produce annually, all in the worst of greenhouse gasses, and it's melting out rapidly....exploding out in many cases.

I hope you live long enough to be forced to accept responsibility for your stupidity...something fitting, along the lines of being slowly eaten alive by your family for days before they're murdered by a mob of survivors for their water before you die in agony, limbless, dehydrated, and burnt to a crisp. You deserve no less.

Such an unbelievable bat shit crazy moron you've become.

Could be a tribute to Oscar Wilde, about your *edit - could you have mixed up the personas?

Oscar Wilde
Born: October 16, 1854, Westland Row, Dublin, Ireland
Died: November 30, 1900, Paris, France

Bob Ross
Born: October 29, 1942, Daytona Beach, Florida, United States
Died: July 4, 1995, Orlando, Florida, United States

My great great grandmother rented out houses in a small town in Louisiana in the early 1900's. One day when checking on her properties she found a chest full of KKK robes in a garage of one of her rentals. Instead of confronting her renters, she dragged the chest to the town square, pulled out the robes, and burned them all.
Her renters moved.

Holy shit is this moron deluded.

I'll never understand why they don't just buy a compound, and make it a club, admission by invitation only. Be separatist all you want, on your own property.

Wait, he thinks you can separate races by the language they speak? You've got to be kidding me, you moron.

Homosexuals are to be killed, just like people who eat shellfish or wear blended fabrics, or mow their lawn on Sunday even once. There are dozens to hundreds of rules that call for stoning, if you're Jewish. Not if you follow Christ. Those instructions come from the old testament, not the new.
If he thinks that doesn't matter, he needs to lynch himself immediately.

Ok, @bobknight33, grand wizard of N Carolina supports Trump, his chapter supports Trump, the grand Dragon supports Trump, the organization supports Trump. Not Biden. Of course, despite hearing it directly from the Klan you'll deny it and say they support Biden, that's called being delusional.

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

It's from here:
This quote is attributed to Nobel laureate Baruch Blumberg. In a late 80s PBS documentary, he said half of all human deaths 'may' have been due to malaria.

While it sounds astounding, it's plausible when you think about it. 93% of all humans ever born are dead. But it's a highly speculative business starting from how many people have ever lived.

Prof Carl Haub has come up with an estimate of 108 billion people since 50,000 BC. And only 6.5% of these are alive today. How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?

So did malaria cause the death of roughly 54 billion people? We can speculate. More than 96 billion of these 108 billion lived between 8000 BC and 1900 AD. For malaria to have caused the death of 54 billion people, it should have kept up a phenomenal rate of 5.4 million deaths per year in the last 10,000 years.

WHO estimates of 650,000 deaths per year now seem wildly off the mark. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded a study to find out how many deaths occur due to malaria in today's day and age. The number was 1.24 million in 2010! http://www.bbc.com/news/health-1...

So it's certainly plausible that malaria could have killed five times as many in an age pre-dating modern medicine when most of the world lived as communes along with their cattle and herds.

Also, the longevity of the parasite plasmodium, which causes malaria. Studies have revealed that it's been around since the time of the dinosaurs. And certainly been around from the beginning of our story. http://www.malaria.com/questions...

Entirely plausible!

https://www.quora.com/The-Human-Race-and-Condition-Is-it-true-that-mosquitoes-have-killed-more-than-half-of-all-the-people-who-have-ever-lived

The patent is clearly invalid.
It fails both the "prior art" and "non-obvious" aspects of a patent, in that cell phones existed prior to the creation of this patent and using voice communication over a device is not "non-obvious" (at least, not since the 1900s).

So pretty much yeah, "WHAT THE FUCK PATENT OFFICE?" indeed.

I don't get his "this is what happens when the government controls patents" rant. It's a bad patent, they happen, and patent reform is badly needed in the US, but if you're going to make a statement like that, you need to propose an alternative.

If you don't want the "government" controlling patents, you want ... what? Get rid of patents altogether? Allow a private company to control them?

If he left because of his conscience, doesn't that lend some credence to his claims? I mean, if he disagreed with what was happening out there and stayed anyway, he'd definitely have no integrity.

This isn't the 1900s - if a person objects we don't instantly assume cowardice or questionable integrity. We can forgive people knee-deep in the shit for calling him a few names over it, but we can't be so glib about it in a debate or on here. Or maybe you didn't mean that and you can clarify why his integrity is questionable.

I don't know if it is or isn't, but in the debate above it was clearly an attempt to discredit the person rather than the argument; he literally discredited the person because he was losing the argument.

"How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?"

Gee, I don't know, doofe. Why don't you google it and learn something?

"It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right."

Wrong.

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

The weirdest thing about this video was to hear the narrator talk about "1900s". I don't know. Feels weird.

And they explained away Khan's original appearance being transformed into Khanberbatch as just futuristic cosmetic surgery in the prequel comic I think.

But yes, it's still stupid. In their defense, how else were they going to do Khan? The person would have had to have looked like Montalblan otherwise.

But going back to stupid since it was just stupid to reboot the Khan storyline. Cuz yeah, a genetic superman from the 1990s would be a really big help fighting a war in 2200s. Obviously war in the 2200s is exactly the same as it was in 1900, no leap in logic for this fossil to design a hyper advanced starship that dwarfs the flagship of the day...not at all.

Well if you really pay attention to the trailer, you might realize it's based in the 1900's just like Watson tells us...

You wasted 'em!
With the almost impervious cop car at 2:42, with a superior handling, through a centre of gravity several metres below the car.

The new game is out: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/carmageddon-reincarnation-review/1900-6416163/
..But I think I'll pass.

@dannym3141,
tl;dr is always the risk when trying to also provide actual backing to something complicated, I understand the temptation, but by skipping over what I've said you've not understood me.

On the IPCC scenario, I used the RCP4.5 scenario, the one that is most widely quoted by them as their best estimate. It also the estimate they use when comparing model projections to observations, and the observations track well within it's error margins, albeit on the lower end of the RCP4.5 spectrum.
The IPCC says on temperatures by scenario in Chapter 12 of AR5:
global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5
My sighting of 1.5C for 'best' from IPCC is derived from classing the 4.5 scenario as their best guess and I disagree with you that I'm materially misrepresenting or understanding them on it.

You also said:
... let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism...
Then later
I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread
I understand the thread is long, if you go back though you'll find I've made numerous references to additional peer-review journal articles backing and corroborating claims from the IPCC to make sure I'm not just cherry picking what might have been a politicized summary or assessment. So forgive, me but when you conclude with :
when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source
You are simply put, flat wrong.

Would you mind weighing in with your own position rather than a simply sitting on the fence calling us both too far on either side? I've been here refuting the notion that the scientific evidence tells us we face catastrophe prior to 2100, and even from some posters claims, catastrophe by 2050. I'm merely taking the stance that the science's best guess as approximated in IPCC RCP4.5, we aren't facing catastrophic collapse worthy of an action movie by 2100. I've said multiple times up thread we are facing problems, it's the severity I claimed by others that I am calling out for not being supported by evidence.

@newtboy,

I also noticed my point on CO2 forcing was missed earlier in thread still, I'll try one last time to express this.

In 1900 CO2 concentrations were under 300ppm, today they are nearly 400ppm. Climate model estimates place the impact of that extra 100ppm of CO2 as increasing the TOA energy imbalance by 3W/m-2. Observations of TOA energy imbalance are well agreed that the net imbalance is 0.5W/m-2. That means that natural processes(likely largely the 0.8C warming we've already had) have already cancelled out 2.5W/m-2 of that 3W/m-2. That is to say, 83% of the impact of increased CO2 concentrations has already been balanced out to date. How long it takes to get that all the way to 100% is part of the problems that climate models are trying to solve, but regrettably it's tied to TOA energy so models still don't have a great deal of veracity yet on that for us. Still, it's reason for a lot less gloom and doom than so many are calling for.