Ankylosaurus magniventrishas always been my favorite. Huge (33' and around 8 tons) and one of the spikiest of all ankylosaurs. My favorite dinosaur of all time.
I prefer the theory that it's both false head and weapon. Dinosaurs often didn't have great vision so a false head doesn't have to be very convincing. Getting a predator to attack the club would put it in perfect striking range, the tails weren't as flexible as crocodiles or iguanas, and 8 ton giant bearded dragons don't spin on a dime.
*promote a *quality beast.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Baby-Iguana-Being-Chased-By-Snakes-1

This is spectacular, but unfortunately a dupe of https://videosift.com/video/Baby-Iguana-Being-Chased-By-Snakes-1

From http://www.reddit.com/r/iguanas/comments/5c3lmx/iguana_vs_snakes_behind_the_scenes_planet_earth_ii/d9w730e/ :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5EAGIhnXPU

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Baby-Iguana-Being-Chased-By-Snakes-1

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by ant. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Congratulations! Your comment on Baby Iguana Being Chased By Snakes has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

The embed seems pretty jacked up.

It's a dupe anyway http://videosift.com/video/Baby-Iguana-Being-Chased-By-Snakes-1

Your video, Marine Iguanas feeding off Galapagos, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

He looked to be a healthy weight to me. I've seen footage of wild one's that looked even fatter, for instance most marine iguanas in the Galapagos that I've seen looked fatter, but he's certainly well fed and happy.
I did anoles too, in a 200 gal terrarium with tiger salamanders. Every now and then I gave one to the Savana monitor, I figured a lizard has everything in it that a growing lizard needs, so they should make a good supplement.

Stuff that iguanas think tastes terrible, apparently.

Oh, then you do believe in AGW? If not, what's the straw man?
If global warming were the reason I do the things I do, you would be correct, going vegetarian would be a reasonable next step. The thing is I've done all I have done for personal, self centered reasons that benefit me personally, it just so happens that they mostly also benefit the planet. Because I intentionally didn't have children and don't believe in reincarnation, I have little incentive to attempt to save the planet beyond my lifespan. That said, I eat little beef, which is the worst meat to eat, and mostly chicken, the best meat for ecology (except for Iguana tail, a truly sustainable meat product).
CO2 staying at current levels dooms the planet fairly quickly. Raising those levels dooms if faster and more completely. I see little chance that we might actually decrease CO2 production levels, much less turn it to a negative number, which needs to happen if there's any chance in hell of stopping the run-away greenhouse effect. I see it as an issue that's far too late to stop, and can only be minimized at best, and will likely be maximized instead.
It's more like 4 billion that need to reduce their 'footprint', and another 3-4 billion that need to not expand theirs. More to the point, it's about 5 billion that need to not reproduce, while the other 3 billion only have 2 children at most. Not a likely outcome, but what is needed to solve the most pressing issues of the day.
Government is required to incentivize industry to follow suit and reduce their emissions. Without coersion, they'll do what's cheaper every time, and not cleaning up your own mess is always cheaper.
The only 'climate scientists' that are skeptical are the deniers, all others have examined the data and come to the same conclusion, just differing in the levels of change they expect. From what I see, they all underestimate the changes to come and ignore compounding features of the systems.
I'm not sure why you don't see this as a serious conversation, but that's on you.
I have given a scientific commentary. you ignored it and asked the same questions again, claiming they had been ignored. I'll try again....

CO2 saturation and temperature are linked, and have been proven to be so. Human production of CO2 is larger and faster than any natural CO2 rise in known climate history, well over 200000 years and up to hundreds of millions of years depending on what data you consider reasonable and reliable, and it's not only the amount but the rate of change that is greater than any natural climate change ever seen in the data. It's that faster rate of change that's the most dangerous, but the amount that determines the change to come. The system is slow to react, and is only now reacting to last centuries atmospheric changes. That means that even if we stopped CO2 production completely today, the effects will still be felt for centuries to come, and we aren't even slowing the rate at which we raise the amount of CO2 we produce, it's going up faster by the day thanks to those that either deny the problem or ignore it in favor of profit or simplicity. That's why estimates of the future are all lacking in my eyes, they all assume either static or reduced CO2 production, which is not reality.
We're hosed. The only option I see is to become self sufficient and die before the planet does. One more reason to not have children and instead be self sufficient as much as possible and enjoy what's left while you can.

Iguanas.

Oh shit, I forgot about the cyberpuck, which sounds like a robotic Shakespeare character. <- boom goes the dynamite.
And the whole 1280 x 800 smacks of bs to me in the same way Forte's claims of 512x460 did: adding together the per-eye resolution. Granted, they seem to be upfront about the vertical resolution of 800 (which isn't great for 2012 either) but that horizontal res? Boolshit! It might be 1280 for an iguana with eyes on either side of it's head, looking at different shit per eyeball all its life. But for we humans, each eyeball pretty much looks at the same thing, not accounting for parallax of course. So I'd say the actual horizontal resolution might approach 800, depending on how much they want each eye to "share" as it were. So it's essentially a giant square.

Naysaying/partypooping aside, it still looks promising. There's nothing quite like moving your head around to observe a virtual world: it affords the kind of immersion you can't touch with a standard monitor setup, I don't care how big it is. <- that's what she never says. Boom again!

>> ^probie:

>> ^shuac:
Back in '96, I bought a Forte VFX-1 which was a VR headset with stereoscopic vision, very comfy over-the-ear headphones, and motion tracking. All for about $1000.
Each eyeball had it's own little LCD screen (263x230) and I can tell you that it looked like pure ass. Despite it's shortcomings, I played the original System Shock with it and I still have very fond memories of skulking through Citadel station with that thing strapped to my melon.
While I'm not interested in contributing to a kickstarter campaign (after all, that's why we have venture capitalists), I may be interested in a finished retail product.

Ha! I, too, bought a VFX-1 headset. (Had to buy a separate Number Nine S3 Virge card as well so the interface cable would work). I never did play SS1 on it, but I did roll through Quake 1 and all of it's mission packs, as well as used it for Looking Glass' Flight Unlimited. I never used the Cyberpuck controller, as it wasn't very intuitive to me. Once GLQuake came out (which had to run at nothing less than 512x384) that was the final nail in the coffin. But fun times while it lasted.