Your video, You Can Hear The Difference Between Hot and Cold Water, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 136 Badge!

I think the best form of sex is masturbation and I only tell jokes to amuse myself. And yet I keep coming here.

'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'
- Book Of Infinite Quotes

Really really good vid, certainly gives a very good overview of the chain of events that cause global warming to be life ending.

From what he's explained, it seems to be - less ice at the poles -> less difference in temperature between hot and cold areas -> less ocean currents -> ocean anoxia -> hydrogen sulfide.

Many of the other issues would cause local crises, but living on a planet with no ocean life and with poisonous gas everywhere seems pretty nasty.

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

While the "overwhelming evidence" for human caused climate change remains underwhelming, in ether case, I'll do what helps the most people to limit greenhouse gases: stop consuming beef (since "we the people" have little to no power over the major causes of climate change: U.S.A.'s and China's governments).

Still, while it's worth doing what we can to diminish greenhouse gases, it's probably wise to get a better understanding of the meteorological conditions affecting the planet from sources other than televised comedy shows.

(Surely, someone somewhere has an explanation, say, for this, but I doubt televised comedy shows have the time, expertise, or attention spans to adequately address a complex issue).

Well Sluice, here is the problem. The catholic church teaches you that to follow God, you must do it through their church. In other words, they have made themselves the mediator between God and man. They have also supplanted the truth in the word of God with their traditions. They actually put the Pope, the traditions of the church, and the scripture on an equal level. So, to be a Catholic you must follow all of their traditions, agree with everything the pope says, do all of the sacraments, go to confession, etc etc etc. The issue is that none of this has anything to do salvation. You cannot come to know God by doing any of these things. So while you may have been talking to God, that doesn't mean you knew Him. To know God you have to be born again. This is what Jesus says about those seeking Him through traditions:

Mark 7:7

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

It's like this. If you needed to get to Los Angeles, and you took a plane to New York, would you expect to arrive at Los Angeles? Of course not. Trying to know God through Catholicism is like trying to reach Los Angeles by flying to New York. There are some Catholics, who, having read the bible and understood it, may have come to know God, but this would be in spite of their religion, not because of it.

Now, you bring up the question of why do some ministers fall away? Well, anyone can go to seminary and get a degree and call themselves a pastor. That isn't what makes someone a Pastor. Pastors are not educated, they are called.

Yes, some people may come to know God and still fall away. Look at what Jesus said:

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.'

Rev 3:15 "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

He promised the church in Laodicea that He would eject lukewarm believers from the faith. For those who know God and continually willfully sin, He says this:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Basically, those who come to God but don't really want to serve Him and they refuse to change, He lets them fall back into unbelief. If they ever turn around and want to come back, He will take them back again.

Right now, if you truly wanted to know God, He would reveal Himself to you. Pride may be the only thing that is getting in the way. He is knocking on your door right now; that's why we're having this conversation. It's up to you to answer it.

Suffocatingly-nest.

Personally I'd suspect the hell out of that air filtration system....that it's picking up something at the higher altitudes that it's not able to deal with and creates the wrong mixture and pumps it to the pilots or flat out doesn't filter for whatever it's picking up.

If you've ever driven a vehicle with a leaky exhaust, you'll notice you feel fine for a long time and then suddenly you just kind of wake up and go...something is wrong. Roll down the window and feel almost instantly better and more clear headed even when it's crazy hot or cold out because the air is not contaminated.

>> ^Sagemind:

OK, with laundry, I get Light, Med, Dark but in no way do I get hot/cold!
We wash everything in cold water.
And, what's the deal with randomly choosing hot over cold for certain items?
And to top it off, hand washing is only for stuff that doesn't regularly get washed or bizarre stains.
And those stupid toilet brushes are crap (pun), just dump in some Lysol (to kill the germs) and wipe the bowl out with a cloth. Way more effective.


You really should always hand wash your bras or you end up having the underwiring poke through.

OK, with laundry, I get Light, Med, Dark but in no way do I get hot/cold!
We wash everything in cold water.
And, what's the deal with randomly choosing hot over cold for certain items?
And to top it off, hand washing is only for stuff that doesn't regularly get washed or bizarre stains.

And those stupid toilet brushes are crap (pun), just dump in some Lysol (to kill the germs) and wipe the bowl out with a cloth. Way more effective.

@luxury_pie
@lavoll
@hpqp

Yes, some people fall over screaming. But think on this---does everyone die from being struck by lightning? Heck, a man completely lost his feelings of hot and cold from lightning for some odd reason. Electricity is a weird woman if I do say so myself. Sometimes it burns through the back and comes out the hand, other times it strikes around people and just says "hi" as it circles around and goes about its merry way.

Reaction, like pain and girly screaming has little to do with being a man except that most men have larger masses of muscle than their female counter parts (Which physically reacts to electricity by contracting far more than say, fat, skin, or bones.) Think of this--large muscles doesn't swim well nor tase well.

Also, it depends where the taser hits and all kinds of shit. Same with pepper spray and other CS gas (I have been CS-ed in my Army days and fuck it hurts.)

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Yes... it was also on TV in the States. Anyway there are other fish in the sea.

It's a cool cover though... the singer didn't know any English when they did it, he had the words written out phonetically in Russian!

In reply to this comment by JenniferBurger:
with 1,000,000 views, i knew it was too good to be true.

You didn't find it because you needed to know that the band is called Los Colorados

http://videosift.com/video/Ukrainians-Los-Colorados-Cover-Katy-Perry-s-Hot-Cold

It's a dupe, but as a lowly n00b I can't call it.

>> ^CrushBug:

I thought this was already sifted, but I cannot find it. Upvote!

(A small addition that has a lot to do with the last part of the original Blog Post.)

The one I posted directly above has some small changes for easier reading. I still need to do a little idea storming at the end as I'm VERY unsure whether the forces at play would still hold the Universe together.

It's more likely that the "big rip" will win out, even over the weak and strong nuclear forces (which is a lot of energy considering that it just did it to the UNIVERSE! heh...

I also need to see, particularly under what conditions the Universe might start to be "swayed" by quantum fluctuations, the same you see at the beginning of the big bang, that had a lot to do with how matter and other non-baryonic (that 's the official way of saying, matter that isn't like the stuff we know: like Dark Matter) matter set up (when you look at the cosmic background radiation (CBR) map, the "hot vs. cold") topography wise; it's why the Universe isn't a smooth uniform (or symmetric) balanced energy place; which you would expect from a perfect explosion like the Big Bang, but the CBR shows that the explosion was far from being smooth and quite the opposite.

It's what gives us our galaxies and also where they're at. The question besides how gravity is related to the quantum mechanics realm; as we have NO theory (with a few hypotheses that almost all have to do with string theory: strings of energy in different "dimensional" configurations; like one dimension, two dimension (planer), etc..."; these little strings vibrate, kind of like a standing wave and intercede and connect into our dimension: think of a plane with limited dimensions on the x & y, then imagine a line intersecting in two spots--one coming "up" the other going "down", but the second connection BARELY hits the plane.

On our end we see a photon that appears to act like a particle and wave in whichever situation it's facing.Normally it may only act like a wave the first spot, but since the energy of this photon is a gamma ray (increased energy) it caused the string to vibrate more forcefully. Thus, connecting it to our "planer" observable space-time. But, when the energy decreases, the photon's string is pulled back and all of a sudden it only displays one of the two characteristics. Baryonic matter works the same way in String Theory, but requires VERY hard math to solve the discrepancies (one of the reasons some people hate it as it isn't a so called "elegant solution"; everything we've seen so far, while hard to grasp initially--tends to, "so far", work out to be very easy solutions).

However, string theory has described many things we have found out in the particle world very well. Another idea (which is more elegant and to me, the presence of "e" in it is very, intriguing) is E8 Symmetry. It's also a mathematical solution, so don't expect too much straight forward dialogue in it's definition. However, remember that Euler's number/The "Natural" number, "e", is related to a great many things already present in everyday life and the formation of almost everything from: you neural pathways, your circulatory system, clouds, trees/plants, sea shells, galaxies, fractals, and much much more...

What I need to know his how baryonic matter would react given a scenario were everything is ripped apart. Specifically, it's quantum mechanical reactions. Does it go into a "quantum critical state" (a fancy way of saying "pseudo"-superposition), as in this state it would still behave in a quantum mechanical way according to superposition. This leads to the last question. If it does enter superposition, is it possible that it may become "uncoupled, disassociated, or dis-entangled" from other matter, even non-baryonic matter like dark matter.

Anyway, just a bit more for what I wrote. More of me, thinking aloud, as I've read a lot about entanglement and superposition, but in this scenario I'd mot likely need an expert to think about it and give me an answer. Math will most likely be useless till we have some hard information on it; right now it's just pure observation. Then you may be able to commit yourself to some math that would show (or at least predict) what most likely would occur.

Another long ponderment! I'm keeping that word so screw you Merriam-Webster!

It could be worse, she could be putting hot sauce in his mouth and making him take cold showers. Don't worry, I'm sure this kid will grow up just fine without any sort of discipline whatsoever.

And to all those who said it was sick, that she was an unfit mother, or even went as far as to say what she did was abuse, about this video; would you say the same about this woman?

In an article from The New York Times, Dr. Shari Barkin, chief of the division of general pediatrics at the Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University says:

Many parents’ discipline methods don’t work because children quickly learn that it’s much easier to capture a parent’s attention with bad behavior than with good. Parents unwittingly reinforce this by getting on the phone, sending e-mail messages or reading the paper as soon as a child starts playing quietly, and by stopping the activity and scolding a child when he starts to misbehave.

“How many times have you heard someone say, ‘I need to get off the phone because my child is acting up’?” asked Dr. Nathan J. Blum, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “You’re doing exactly what the child wants.”

I argue that this kind of reinforcement only sets this child up for negative attention seeking behavior for the rest of his/her life. And in my opinion this is just as (if not more) abusive as putting hot sauce in someone's mouth or making them take a cold shower as a form of punishment. When that mom told her kid to do something he sure as shit did it, maybe it was done out of fear (and im still not advocating that, just trying to shoot down people who call it child abuse) but it's better that he's afraid of authority imho than unyielding.

This boy is the kind of person that's gonna grow up to be a career criminal, constantly disrespecting authority. The other boy will hate hot sauce, cold showers, and probably his mother. I'll pick the latter any day.