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

agreed. love the art style.>> ^vaire2ube:

who ever made this was high

I honestly think that you should not have your license without knowing how to do such a simple thing as change a tire. All around the world, whatever standard you have, should include the ability to change out a tire.

I have it set in stone in my mind that no matter how sexy the girl, when I help her out in such a situation she is damn well going to be down there doing it with me learning a thing.


My buddy doesnt even know how to to it, he is one of those computer yuppies, piss' me off that people like that exist. relying on Gps and AMA. Whatever, makes another niche in the market for someone else to make money off of.

** end semi-rant.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

pseudo-science? Hmmm, consider your source...

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm <http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm>

but my personal favorite is this Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ <http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/>

also

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

all that to say is I would not put much worth in that site :-)

I'd rather relying on scientists, researchers, chemists, toxicologists, etc... all professionals who have published studies in peer reviewed journals. But if you think that represents pseudo-science, then it is a sad day for critical thinking.

>> ^teebeenz:

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
>> ^notarobot:
I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

>> ^My_design:

This is called FPV flying and in the RC aircraft world it is the up and coming thing. It's facing a ton of opposition because of potential for injury/damage and general misunderstanding of the technology. It takes a fair bit of money and knowledge to put something together that gets good range and image quality like shown. Previous videos done in Brazil and foreign countries have shown flights in populated cities and been blasted in US forums as dangerous risk takers that were going to cause stringent regulation from the FAA. The fear is that the FAA could make the approval of airfields and and flying in general very difficult. The AMA governs much of what happens in RC flight and they have come out with regulations regarding the use of FPV. I can't say what regulations he breaks in this video, but flying among buildings is probably a big one. Unless you fly RC and have seen the multitude of problems that can occur - from batteries literally exploding in flight, to engines seizing, to speed controls catching fire, to servos locking up, to radio glitching - you may not understand the potential for an incident. Let's just say it's far, FAR greater than commercial flight since none of the components used are regulated.


I haven't watched the video yet, it's loading slow because my internet connection is crappy today. The AMA does not have any authority to govern or regulate what happens outside of an AMA approved field. There is no license required to fly an RC plane, and no requirement to join the AMA.

FPV RC flying is probably in a legal gray zone. The FAA could consider them ultralight or microlight aircraft, neither require a license to operate, which are not allowed to operate over populated areas, but by definition of those categories, they would need a seat. If the FPV pilot has an actual pilots license, then the FAA might make a case that they are operating under the new sport pilot rules, and he could lose his license, pay fines and/or go to jail for reckless or careless operations.

I hope the FAA will stay out of it and not force any regulations. The aircraft are small, but still can cause some damage to property. I don't see it needing regulation unless it gets too popular and RC aircraft start falling from the sky on a daily basis.

I've always wanted to build my own UAV, but not an FPV. I want to be able to program a flight path in it, launch it from my yard, and maybe have a 3G modem in it so that I can track/watch it from my computer and give it new coordinates. Then have it return where I can download video and pictures from it.

This is called FPV flying and in the RC aircraft world it is the up and coming thing. It's facing a ton of opposition because of potential for injury/damage and general misunderstanding of the technology. It takes a fair bit of money and knowledge to put something together that gets good range and image quality like shown. Previous videos done in Brazil and foreign countries have shown flights in populated cities and been blasted in US forums as dangerous risk takers that were going to cause stringent regulation from the FAA. The fear is that the FAA could make the approval of airfields and and flying in general very difficult. The AMA governs much of what happens in RC flight and they have come out with regulations regarding the use of FPV. I can't say what regulations he breaks in this video, but flying among buildings is probably a big one. Unless you fly RC and have seen the multitude of problems that can occur - from batteries literally exploding in flight, to engines seizing, to speed controls catching fire, to servos locking up, to radio glitching - you may not understand the potential for an incident. Let's just say it's far, FAR greater than commercial flight since none of the components used are regulated.

Just yesterday, in one of my psych classes, we went into depth on the disease of addiction. I was appalled at the misconceptions held by the (perceived) majority. Most people still believe it's selfishness and lack of willpower, contrary to the AMA classifying it as a disease, and all of the scientific research backing the disease concept, most non-addicts can't wrap their head around it. They might think, 'Ive gotten high once or twice, and then I moved on with my life. If I can do it why can't they.' I liken it to telling a diabetic, 'My blood sugar is just fine. Why can't you regulate yours? You don't need insulin. You just need a positive mindset and determination, you weak-willed git!' As my professor referenced case study after case study, neurological and genetic research findings, the majority of the student's still nodded their heads in disbelief. I sat there in horrified silence, being as I am a recovering addict myself. I thought about outing myself, but the bulk of their comments reflected disgust....

Like most dietary advice, the genesis of this recommendation probably comes from two things... 1. Your friendly federal government trying to horn into your life and 2. extrapolated stupidity.

http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/442A08B899F44DF9AAD083D86164C75B.ashx

Some pool of doctors somewhere looked at the DRI tables at some point and concluded, "Most people don't drink NEAR this much water in a day..." So to them, the fact that people aren't following the government's DRI for water is a 'health crisis'.

Naturally in the face of this phantom crisis, they feel obliged to meddle. The DRI tables are too complicated, so they pick a simple target which is in the ballpark (64 oz) and start telling people "your doctor recommends that you drink 8 eight oz glasses of water a day". Bingo - you have a myth.

My doctor - who isn't an idiot - put it quite simply. "Drink when you're thisty until you're not." That's all you need to know. These 'targets' you get from the USDA, DRI, AMA, and other places are general advice - not gospel truth. Listen to your body & use common sense. Your body and brain are 100X more qualified than the nanny state and buttinsky panels.

>> ^bmacs27:
@gwiz665 : It's funny, because I just got through talking with my lab mate about why this wouldn't work. He just said it wouldn't fly politically. All the vested interests (i.e. insurers, pharma, AMA, etc) all want the Dem's bill. In other words, nothing to do with patients.


Yeah, this is why things like single-payer and replacing traditional insurance with HSA's is a fantasy in today's world. The Democratic bill is pretty much the only special-interest-friendly way to reform health care in a positive way -- big, sweeping changes that put insurance companies out of business just weren't in the cards.

It's why the Republican bill is essentially just tort reform (which limits liability of providers), allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines (which allows them to all relocate to the state with the most lax regulation), and changing the tax incentives so that people are likely to move from the employer/group market to the individual one (which is more profitable for the insurance industries, since you lose collective bargaining power).

In other words, the Democratic bill tries to be win-win for both people and the special interests, while the Republican bill basically just helps the big business interests squeeze more money out of people.

Here in America, it seems that it's contrary to our cultural identity to pass legislation that hurts the bottom line of big business in any way.

@gwiz665 : It's funny, because I just got through talking with my lab mate about why this wouldn't work. He just said it wouldn't fly politically. All the vested interests (i.e. insurers, pharma, AMA, etc) all want the Dem's bill. In other words, nothing to do with patients.

>> ^oscarillo:
>> ^ShakaUVM:
If she's the smartest person on TV, how does she not understand that national health care plan proposed IS socialism? You just look stupid when you mock people pointing out the obvious.
It's not a "national insurance policy" - that would imply, at least to reasonable people, that it would cover its own costs using, you know, actuary tables and stuff like that, like real companies use. Instead, it is subsidized health care, where the government picks up 2/3rds of the tab of health care, while increasing health costs by paying doctors more than market value for their services.
There's nothing to like about Obamacare. Unless you're a doctor, I guess. Which is why the AMA is for it.

C'mon
I really try to undestand all you rednecks out there, but this is something I dont get :
If your so call "socialism" will help far more people, far more ( I wont put a number because probably you didnt learn it before quiting elementry school) what is the problem , because it sound like "socialism", mmm...C'mon....Yes do it like real companies!! keep fucking me in the ass, yes I will pay more for my shitty health care insurance so I can get a flu shoot, Yes!!! , as long it doesnt sound like "socialism"


I didn't say I disagreed with it because it was socialism, I was just mocking Rachel for trying to pretend that it's not socialism. The VA, Medicare, Medi-Cal, etc., are all socialized medicine systems. She's shilling for the administration by trying to pretend otherwise. I detest dishonesty like that in reporters.

But I dislike Obamacare because 1) It'll bankrupt the country and 2) It will raise medical prices.

The VA is an example of socialized medicine run passably well. They use their massive purchasing power to negotiate lower drug rates for their system, and they do everything they can to keep costs low. Obamacare (and to be fair, Medicare Part D, Bush's brain-dead plan) not only will not use its power to lower rates, but actually raises them above the current market rates (Medicare Part D prohibits the government from using its purchasing power from negotiating lower rates). I don't see how anyone who understands his system could possibly be for it.

Unless you think Obama can wave his magic fairy wand and leprechauns and unicorns will pop into existence to lower our blood pressure and cure cancer.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
If she's the smartest person on TV, how does she not understand that national health care plan proposed IS socialism? You just look stupid when you mock people pointing out the obvious.
It's not a "national insurance policy" - that would imply, at least to reasonable people, that it would cover its own costs using, you know, actuary tables and stuff like that, like real companies use. Instead, it is subsidized health care, where the government picks up 2/3rds of the tab of health care, while increasing health costs by paying doctors more than market value for their services.
There's nothing to like about Obamacare. Unless you're a doctor, I guess. Which is why the AMA is for it.


C'mon
I really try to undestand all you rednecks out there, but this is something I dont get :
If your so call "socialism" will help far more people, far more ( I wont put a number because probably you didnt learn it before quiting elementry school) what is the problem , because it sound like "socialism", mmm...C'mon....Yes do it like real companies!! keep fucking me in the ass, yes I will pay more for my shitty health care insurance so I can get a flu shoot, Yes!!! , as long it doesnt sound like "socialism"

If she's the smartest person on TV, how does she not understand that national health care plan proposed IS socialism? You just look stupid when you mock people pointing out the obvious.

It's not a "national insurance policy" - that would imply, at least to reasonable people, that it would cover its own costs using, you know, actuary tables and stuff like that, like real companies use. Instead, it is subsidized health care, where the government picks up 2/3rds of the tab of health care, while increasing health costs by paying doctors more than market value for their services.

There's nothing to like about Obamacare. Unless you're a doctor, I guess. Which is why the AMA is for it.