Thanks for the story! When/if it gets to be my time I hope they have little nanobots to do it (maybe not that probable) or that my crying and begging will somehow move the doctor enough to sedate me for the procedure ahahahaha. I seriously don't know if I could take the pain and discomfort.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
In fairness, cystoscopy is a lot better than it used to be. The first time I had one was in 1988. They didn't use any anesthesia, and they probed all the way through my right ureter (the long tube connecting the kidney to the bladder), right up to the entrance of the kidney. I could feel the probe moving around in my back. When I got back to my place after the appointment my roommates thought I should go back to the doctor because I looked so pale.

The next time I had one was just two years ago. It still sucked, but at least they used some anesthesia (it only numbs the urethra), and they didn't go past the bladder. Still no picnic, but much less traumatic than the first time.

In both cases, the first piss you take afterwards burns like you would NOT believe. Now with a prostate exam, you only experience discomfort while it's in progress. No burning, just some pressure pain. It's quite uncomfortable...sort of like someone stuck a finger up your ass. But when it's over, so is the discomfort. Hemorrhoids are more painful, really, and that pain doesn't go away quickly.

Don't mean to spook you, but I figure it's better to know these things ahead of time, so you can mentally prepare yourself. Deep breathing has always helped me, in virtually all pain situations.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

In fairness, cystoscopy is a lot better than it used to be. The first time I had one was in 1988. They didn't use any anesthesia, and they probed all the way through my right ureter (the long tube connecting the kidney to the bladder), right up to the entrance of the kidney. I could feel the probe moving around in my back. When I got back to my place after the appointment my roommates thought I should go back to the doctor because I looked so pale.

The next time I had one was just two years ago. It still sucked, but at least they used some anesthesia (it only numbs the urethra), and they didn't go past the bladder. Still no picnic, but much less traumatic than the first time.

In both cases, the first piss you take afterwards burns like you would NOT believe. Now with a prostate exam, you only experience discomfort while it's in progress. No burning, just some pressure pain. It's quite uncomfortable...sort of like someone stuck a finger up your ass. But when it's over, so is the discomfort. Hemorrhoids are more painful, really, and that pain doesn't go away quickly.

Don't mean to spook you, but I figure it's better to know these things ahead of time, so you can mentally prepare yourself. Also, deep breathing has always helped me, in virtually all pain situations.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Yeah, the prostate exam doesn't look so scary but I would lose my mind if I needed to do a cystoscopy or any surgery down there. I would just run until I died.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Prostate exams are unpleasant, but not as bad as some people would like you to believe. I'd rather have 50 prostate exams than one cystoscopy. (Yes, I've had both procedures, and more than once for both of them.) Besides, what's worse: A finger up the ass, or dying from prostate cancer?

Hey, saw your Church vids. Thought you might like these from the same era:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Go-Betweens-Spring-Rain
http://videosift.com/video/The-Go-Betweens-Streets-of-Your-Town-1988

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with>

Cut and paste, yes, to prevent inaccuracy, and thank you.

To an ante of coin based in fact you raise in fiat of opinion. I addressed
opinion already. Don't like facts? How about polls? Opinions were all you laid down.
.
As such, and from the website of the International Committee of the Red
Cross at:

<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/560?OpenDocument>

<Forum of adoption International lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Livorno (Italy)>

<The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea.>

Good enough for the Red Cross.

Israel had and has an extant blockade...Simply, there was no attack. Termed
a Visit within the language of the manual and is evidently reflective of Maritime
Law. Israel was within their proper bounds per the above.

All the harangue amounts to posturing. Mission(s) accomplished. This, by the
way, is the only opinion I have offered.

I was half asleep when I posted this, Sorry, Must be the Youtube posting Date - Oop's
Edit: Removed to avoid further confusion - Thanks
>> ^slickhead:

Divine died on March 7, 1988. This video is clearly dated 1984. What is the deal with April 05, 2006.

Divine died on March 7, 1988. This video is clearly dated 1984. What is the deal with April 05, 2006.

December 4, 1988 - Not wearing a helmet has consequences.

>> Why isn't this in the Olympics?


It was in as a demonstration sport in 1988 and 1992, I believe.

>> ^Psychologic:
It sounds like a simple, effective idea, but I am curious about a few things.
-Medicare is currently funded through payroll taxes (I think), which is a percent of income. Would "paying in" to the system be in addition to the current taxes?
-Would high-income and low-income people pay the same additional rate?
-How much is the "at cost" rate, and how is it determined?
-Would people below a certain income be exempt from the monthly rate? If so, how is their coverage funded?
-How much cost would be added to the system to track payments and delinquencies for (possibly) millions of new beneficiaries?
-Could people wait until the got sick to join, and then possibly drop it afterward?


Please read the bill -- It's quite short and answers almost all of these questions.

Bill text: http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4789:
Social Security Act section 1818: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1818.htm

- Buying into the plan refers to enrolling and paying premiums for Medicare. Payroll taxes are not affected.
- Rates depend only on age cohort (age group).
- "The Secretary shall, during September of each year (beginning with 1988), estimate the monthly actuarial rate for months in the succeeding year. Such actuarial rate shall be one–twelfth of the amount which the Secretary estimates (on an average, per capita basis) is equal to 100 percent of the benefits and administrative costs which will be payable from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services performed and related administrative costs incurred in the succeeding year with respect to individuals age 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under this part during that year." (From Social Security Act s.1818) The new bill assigns cost based on the pertinent age cohort instead of individuals age 65 and over.
- The bill doesn't make allowances for this, so if an individual people below a certain rate over age 65 were eligible for price breaks, then people under 65 would be eligible for the same breaks. The bill only affects enrollment and calculation of premiums.
- We'll have to wait for the CBO estimate for this one.
- "Enrollment; Coverage- The Secretary shall establish enrollment periods and coverage under this section consistent with the principles for establishment of enrollment periods and coverage for individuals under section 1818, except that no entitlement to benefits under this part shall be effective before the first day of the first calendar year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act." (from the Public Option Act) Similar criteria for enrollment will apply to new enrollees. If you can pull the add / drop bait and switch with Medicare now, then everyone will be able to do it tomorrow. If not, then not.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wow, copenhagen, street performance, jon magnusson, 1988, the boss' to 'springsteen, copenhagen, street performance, jon magnusson, 1988, the boss' - edited by volumptuous

This intro is circa 1988-89, ergo...80s.

Gmail must be 20 years old for this to be made in 1988..

Just to clarify:
This animation is from 2008 or something like that.
The "Copyright 1988" is for The Pixies song, not the animation.
Programs used are no older than 5 years old. (Maya 8.5)

I appreciate the effort, being made by a single person and all (except the voices), but it must be a student project or something like that and it's not a very impressive one.

check the copyright guys ..........1988.
the content is superb and considering the technology in 1988 the animation is quite good.
but if plot development and execution are something you ignore i suggest you stick with that great movie "transformers:rise of the fallen".now THERE is a movie with great animation and absolutely ZERO plot development,but it does have great shots of megan fox's rear-end.
who cares if she cant act,that girl has a great ass!
who cares if the plot makes no sense,the movie has tons of explosions.

here is a shiny ball...now go play in traffic.

Aaaahh, I see. Our Provincial Capital, land of the Newlywed and the Nearly Dead.

Nice place to visit if there's no vacancies on Saltspring.



In reply to this comment by Payback:
Nope, other direction... over the Hat.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
You a Nanaimo boy? Sorry to hear that. Me, N.D.S.S. grad 1988 .

In reply to this comment by Payback:
How about 100km diet? I hate Nanaimo micro brews anyway.

Nope, other direction... over the Hat.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
You a Nanaimo boy? Sorry to hear that. Me, N.D.S.S. grad 1988 .

In reply to this comment by Payback:
How about 100km diet? I hate Nanaimo micro brews anyway.