I cleaned for years too. I disagree. In my experience women's bathrooms are in general much cleaner.

Ergo, the problem with anecdotes.

He compares 13 minutes to 6 hours as some sort of huge difference in training. They are almost exactly identical in substance and meaning at those numbers.

Cheaper, more convenient, better coverage in our city, cleaner vehicles, more friendly drives, the list goes on and on. If the taxi cab companies could offer something similar then I might think of using them again. But they got beat to the punch and now they are going to lose their shirts. Too little, too late.

Well, I must admit you have a point. I don't think that way, growing up around animals that were food, and doing the work ourselves, not hiding from it, but most people don't have that experience.
My opinion is that ending the intolerable suffering some animals are subjected to is more important than ending meat eating, so I suggest trying to convince people to use smaller, family farmed meats that are more likely to have proper, 'humane' treatment and death....but not by shaming them with images of abused animals or blaming them for eating the wrong thing. That only gets people defensive. Simply explaining how the better treatment creates a MUCH better, tastier, 'cleaner' (of hormones and anti-biotics) meat that's worth the extra effort, and extra cost, should work better. Appeal to people's unwavering belief that they deserve better, and steer them in a direction that also works for your goal.
I don't think you'll ever convince a high percentage of meat eaters to go vegetarian, much less vegan, and I think that guilt and shame make people want to fight about the issue rather than do anything. But that just, like, my opinion, man. ;-)

All this said, I've realized that I'm fighting against my own interests, because if most people went vegan, meat would be much cheaper and better quality (it would have to be to sell). Oh well, not the first time. ;-)


EDIT: I've just realized something else. You should never use the 'we don't kill people like that' argument, because we absolutely do kill people when it suits our purposes, like prisoner executions and wars, and also including for food (in a way) in places and times where societal pressures hadn't made eating people 'taboo'.

Amateurs, my guys would have had Yoda dismantled and hidden in every corner of the house by the end of this video. I suspect, in their former lives they worked as cleaners for the Mob.

2 things:
1) "floor cleaner" Listerine is most likely a different thing than mouth wash Listerine.
2) Just because they invented the term, doesn't mean it's not a legitimate medical condition. They just marketed it...

OK, that's a large change from your original post where you limit the death sentence to the mentally ill.

Wow. I'm certainly glad people like you don't make societies rules then. Death sentence for a simple threat?!? Sweet zombie Jesus! That's EVERYONE at some point.
What if you threaten to stab someone who's trying to stab you? You threatened, so you die?
What if I claim you threatened me to get the state to kill you? You can't prove you didn't, so you die?
What if you just hit them with a stick? You still get executed, right?
What if you turn a corner and accidentally stab someone? You still get executed for being unsafe, right?
What if you just push someone? You still get executed because that's also violence, right?
Or is it ONLY if you use a knife? Your position is so odd and illogical to me that that's a reasonable question to ask. Exactly where is your line where violence is met with death? At what age do you implement it?
I don't think you thought through the full implications of your 'idea'.

People in general are unpredictable. Period. Those that are assumed to not be mentally ill, yet are still prone to violence are MORE dangerous and unpredictable than those we know to be wary of, not less.

I don't think you've actually ever deigned to speak with a custodian, considering your assumptions about them. I would counter that most take great pride in their work, work that's a necessity, that pays well, and does not require extensive training or school, only a willingness to work hard and an ability to be conscientious about your work.
Your idea, to ask if they would like a cushier job with the same pay, is patently ridiculous and applies to ANY job....'Would you like to work much less in a far cleaner environment with less stress for the same money?'...DUH...who's not going to say "yes" to that deal? If you asked them would they quit their job for another job they might actually GET at it's pay rate, I would suggest you'll likely find 99% would say "no fucking way, are you stupid?!? I would need to work 3 fast food jobs to equal one custodial job". That goes for those with and without degrees, BTW. A diploma is no guarantee of a job in your field, and a job in your field is no guarantee of happiness.

Do you not see that, while you likely do greatly appreciate their work, you are denigrating them and the job they do? It's like you think only 'untouchables' should do that kind of work, and they're all really sub-humans so that's OK, but a real person would/should never stoop to 'cleaning' after others.
Just wow.

EDIT: In a way, your mindset is the reason why custodial work pays so well, so I guess I should really thank you.

So i appreciate the single columns but compared to the old sift design think it looks a mess.

old design visually much more appealing imo
http://i.imgur.com/FoZtUaj.png

New design way to much empty space (but much better then 2 columns)
http://i.imgur.com/9P9ag9F.png

-edit- also new design has no time length for video or view numbers. Ill always prefer more options and functionality over a slicker/cleaner style. Not saying i think its actually slicker or cleaner but assume thats what the new design is trying to achieve.

I'm obviously talking Swahili here... What part of "do not have a choice" don't you understand? I don't get to set the tariffs or when the sun comes up, and batteries enough to load shift significantly in Aus are still in the 20-30 grand area. You are fortunate you live in a place where the energy company still allows you a reasonable price for the energy you produce. The acceptance you talk about is the same acceptance a hostage gives it's kidnapper when they have a gun held to their head... Perhaps you're even lucky enough to have multiple energy providers competing for your custom. In Aus, it's almost entirely single provider in the realm of electricity supply.

However, that's neither fucking here nor there when it comes to energy returns... Energy returned on energy does not once mention the word "dollars" or "money"...

A simple analogy would be using a thousand 200 dollar bicycles to pull a load or 1 200 thousand dollar prime mover. The bikes are cleaner, certainly, but once you pay the wages of 1000 people to ride them/feed them, give them accomodation etc (vs 1 guy in the truck), and then work out just how long those people can continuously ride, the cost of the fuel in the truck etc, the truck becomes the obvious answer. That's why we use trucks instead of team pulled wagons, they are just better suited to the task. The same counts for energy generation, we need a clean prime mover, and we're going to have to suck up the cost to do it. If we're going to save the world, we're going to have to make sacrifices in the form of paying more until someone invents clean abundant energy generation that is also cheap.

Your "double the return on coal" is completely unsubstantiated.

Of course solar PV is cleaner than coal, but you need to expend far more energy to generate 1 KW/h of PV energy than you do to generate 1 KW/h of coal energy... It's part of the reason why coal is cheaper than solar and why so much of the world still relies on it. Because people cannot see past their wallet to the bigger picture.

I would love if PV on roofs were the answer, just like it would be awesome if everyone could farm their own vegetables in their backyard. But we moved beyond subsistence living to mass production a long time ago because people realised it was a huge effort that paid relatively small returns. Residential solar PV is a convenient foil to keep people thinking that it's making a difference when we could be investing public dollars in to wind (more viable), nuke (more viable), solar thermal (more viable), wave (more viable), hydro etc. And a lot of those techs are probably going to be more expensive than solar PV. What did that Native American fellow say? 'When it's all gone to shit, will you eat money?'

Money being the only concern is what got us to where we are at the moment ffs... =)

You certainly have a choice in how you use the electricity.

I think YOU missed the point, if you can only sell your power for 8 c perkwh, and pay 36c per kwh, and you sell ALL the power you make, then buy it back later, YOU are subsidizing the power company, who makes 28c on every kwh you sell them. No one is subsidizing that 8c they pay(I would hope, 350% profit is already insane) so what "high feed in tariff" are you talking about?

The power grid is fairly smart, and takes into account the amount being produced by ALL sources, and shuts/ramps down those not needed. For you to be sending power when it's not required would require more PV generation than the entire grid uses, because ANY other generation could be put on hold until night. The certainly DO do this on a 'few hundred times per second' basis, at least here in the US. Solar generation may jump up and down on individual systems, but the total amount fed to the grid by all solar systems in an area is fairly stable, and doesn't jump radically from a cloud...come on.
Here, peak power is at peak temperature time, mid-late afternoon, when businesses turn up the AC and people get home, exactly when PV makes the most power, I can't speak for AU.
The point being that the grid CAN and DOES adjust rapidly to account for all generation methods, and it does already shift production because some of the need is supplied by PV.

Not so, the return on energy invested is at least double the return on coal in the long term...for the consumer, that's why you save money VS the electric company in the long term.
It's certainly not cheap or easy to deal with the waste in the US where the company(s) (and the taxpayer when it goes bankrupt) has to pay for destroying major river systems because of inevitable waste releases...as happened recently and repeatedly. Only if you ignore most of the actual costs of coal can you think it's cheaper, if you count all the costs, it's FAR more expensive.

ALL the power/energy needed to produce PV panels is reflected in their cost...100%.
Again, to be a bad way to reduce carbon pollution, you MUST assume it takes more carbon to make a panel VS the amount of carbon pollution it saves VS coal power production of the same amount of KWH. That's simply not the case by a long shot, so it does significantly reduce CO2 production, by around 20-30X vs coal. Even in Germany and Denmark, where it's often overcast, they found ....
"solar PV works out to about 50g of CO2 per kWh compared to coal's 975g of CO2 per kWh, or about 20x "cleaner."" In places with better weather, it can be up to 40X.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/how-much-co2-does-one-solar-panel-create

Once again, my electric company doesn't pay me a dime, it trades me power based on peak and non peak hours. Yours on the other hand makes 350% profit on every kwh you produce. I save cash because making (and USING) my own power is FAR cheaper than buying (mainly) coal produced power from the electric company. No "high feed in tariff" required at all. No feed in tariff at all, in fact.
It obviously makes an inroad on reducing carbon because, beyond the panel's production and shipping, there's ZERO carbon, unlike coal which produces more carbon per 10 KWH than it likely took to make each of my 20 panels, meaning they pay off their carbon debt in about 100 hours of sunlight, and are total carbon savers for the rest of their 20 year lifespan.
If we're going to fix climate change, we need to be HONEST about energy production, not compare 150%-350% of the cost of one production source with 5% of another production source to be able to say the 5% source is better.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Nuke requires a jump in your bill (even with the HUGE government subsidies the nuke industry gets at every step), but it's better than home mounted PV which SAVES you >50% off your 20 year power costs without a taxpayer cent?!?!? Please think about that.

I'm not basing my figures or thoughts on any study, but on my own personal, long term, economic experience with a system.
As someone who purchased a solar system for purely economic reasons, and has found it to be a HUGE cost saver over buying coal/nuke power from the electric company, all without counting subsidies at all, and even considering I paid top dollar for my system and have battery backup (that produces nothing but cost thousands), I'll simply say you're completely wrong in your assessments based on my own dispassionate, no child having, purely economical experience and leave it there.
I'm happy saving 50% of every power/dollar, you are accepting of giving away around 80% of your power/dollars to the power company. That doesn't make solar unworthy, non-"green", or economically unviable, it makes it a TERRIBLE choice for YOU because you're doing it wrong, and your electric company is punishing you rather than incentivizing you.

Here's a cleaner audiosift version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHOUMIQruc

I'm keeping the Nerdist version up on the main for now because I'm enjoying Chris Hardwick's gushing "Hi Ingrid Michaelson!" at the opening.

Or maybe to give a better and more accurate view on round-up toxicity, this summary from a scientific journal article prepared by The Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, link to full article follows:

Results from several investigations establish that
the acute toxicity and irritation potential of Roundup
herbicide in humans is low. Specifically, results from
controlled studies with Roundup showed that skin irritation
was similar to that of a baby shampoo and
lower than that observed with a dishwashing detergent
and an all-purpose cleaner; no dermal sensitization,
photoirritation, or photosensitization reactions were
148 WILLIAMS, KROES, AND MUNRO
observed. Furthermore, the incidence of occupationalrelated
cases involving Roundup is low given the widespread
use of the product. Data from these cases indicated
some potential for eye and skin irritation with
the concentrated product, but exposure to dilute spray
solutions rarely resulted in any significant adverse
effect. Most importantly, no lasting dermal or ocular
effects were noted, and significant systemic effects attributable
to contact with Roundup did not occur. Studies
of Roundup ingestion showed that death and other
serious effects occurred only when large amounts were
intentionally ingested for the purpose of committing
suicide. These data confirmed that the acute oral toxicity
in humans is low and consistent with that predicted
by the results of laboratory studies in animals.


http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

Morbo says: "VACUUM CLEANERS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!"

Here in Thailand, it works a little differently. You know those spray nozzle attachments on a hose for your kitchen sink? Here those are attached in parallel with the toilet itself. So, you do your business, then self-aim the sprayer, squeeze, and let 'er rip.

Not to get too graphic, but you know how sometimes due to illness or specific foods or whatever else, you end up using a LOT of toilet paper? Like, you're on wipe number 17 and not getting clear ... spot checks? Water spray completely eliminates that problem. Way cleaner, way easier (once you get used to the sensation), I'm 100% sold.

I still buy toilet paper, but as the dude in the video said, it is purely for drying purposes. And that requires like 1-3 squares, vs probably a bare minimum of 12 or so for my average bathroom visit when I lived in the US.

Lots of Thai bathrooms have the sprayer but NO toilet paper available. That kinda confuses me, because although if I was forced to choose between either/or but not both I'd go with the spray, I don't quite get the mechanics of how to pull it off without any drying whatsoever...