Might wanna scan the horizon first for the kind of people who'd jump you for hitting a woman, even if she were stabbing you in the side and stealing your kidneys in broad daylight.

Any movie that has Deepwater Horizon in the title and is not a documentary about corporate corruption, neglect, greed and massive environmental damage seems embarrassing. The whole idea seems distasteful and kinda turns my stomach.

From the title I somehow hoped this was a sequel/prequel to Event Horizon. Disappointed.

Holy Crapoleum ... at just 3+ years I'm feeling a tad bit noobster-ish after perusing the comments from above thus far!

Online since 1996, I'd had little of the 'social' aspect of the interwebs prior to learning about VideoSift. Most of the actively social interaction was on YT where we'd cultivated a tight knit [world wide] cat community [surprise!] that really felt like a family. There are still a few of us hanging in there but, as YT changed [heavy sigh], the thrill was gone [r.i.p. former yt AND bb king].

Yeah, some of you know it was a struggle here for me at first, but the charm and allure of something truly special ... and at precisely at the right time ... kept me motivated to carve a place here. [Lucky YOU!]. I've honestly been impressed [and dismayed but secretly amused] with the quality and diversity of those who've participated in the last 10 years of obvious success sooo ... Congratulations are due @dag and @lucky760. As I've always said, wish I'd known about you sooner. And I do so appreciate you having me.

In conclusion Sifters, you're my kind of people ... and I "know" people as, in my mind, I'm quite discerning [except perhaps when it comes to some videos submitted for your consideration ... ummm, how do you like me so far?] And I sincerely appreciate [Eric] so many of you for exposing me to an array of great sites/sights that I surely would never have encountered. You've broadened my horizons beyond words ... which reminds me ... time for my 'medibles'!

Love you all ... whether you like it or not ... you're stuck with me.

just saw this today on my feed and that the federal government has issued a no fly zone.which will be in place for months!

estimations on the total cost and impact are surpassing BP horizon's failure in the gulf of mexico.

NASA has applied to break the no-fly in order to fly drones and collect as much data as they can.this is a fucking ecological disaster of epic proportions.

christ on a stick.....

The fires of hell are scary, man.

I had this youth councilor way back in high school tell me that the only movies that are scary are those that could be real. You know, like Hellraiser, Exocist, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, Event Horizon. You know the REAL shit.

I got an Engineering degree (well, Computer Science, so kinda "Engineering lite") from a traditional 4-year (state) university. And I think it was not a complete waste of my time, but a 50-75% waste.

What I expected / wanted to get out of my degree was a foundation of knowledge and training in order to get a job in my chosen area of specialization (computer programming). My degree gave me that, sorta, but in an incredibly inefficient way. I took a bunch of classes that were in NO WAY relevant. Even classes in my major were very hit or miss; I had ONE class that was centered around working with a team and producing a software project over the course of a year / two semesters that stands out as the only class I think was 100% worthwhile.

Overall, the 4.5 years worth of classes that I took could easily have been condensed into "just the relevant stuff" and fit into a 2 year curriculum. Universities say that they want to produce "well rounded citizens", but they actually want to produce well rounded University coffers.

It IS true that a degree can be a significant barrier to entry for a lot of jobs, so in that sense getting a degree can be "worth it". But I tend to think that in the vast majority of cases that is just employers playing things safe and traditional rather than being a truly necessary requirement for the jobs they want to fill.


High School is the perfect time to "broaden horizons" and expose people to a little bit of everything. I'm all for University-level education trending in a vocational/technical direction like this with much more emphasis on specialization, and where not all degrees/programs require a cookie-cutter 4 years to complete. If you pick the wrong specialization and "waste" 1-2 years learning something that you don't end up actually wanting to do for employment, you could still take a mulligan and start over learning something else in less time than it would take to get a single degree from a 4 year University. More non-traditional students, more specialization, more focus. I wish these guys well and hope that they make some waves.

*dead - "This video is Private." on here and Dark Horizons.

Your video, The New Horizons' Flyby of Pluto, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

There are approximately 343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the ocean. The BP Deepwater Horizon dumped around 210,000,000 million of gallons of oil into the Gulf.

Insignificant? Acceptable? You do the math.

Claiming that "something" exists,in our universe,beyond our horizon,,,violates some basic beliefs about the current model of the universe. (Homogeneous and isotropic) ,,also,,it's in our universe...

Points of the universe at great distance from us are not older than us...the entire universe is the same age...AND made of the same stuff...

The universe is flat Euclidean space,,,infinite,homogeneous ,isotropic ,and expanding from all points in every direction,relative to the observer.

Varoufakis used to work for Valve.

That means he instantly has more cred than anyone else in European government.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/BBC-Horizon-2011-What-is-Reality