Back to the video at hand, I find it a bit hypocritical that the U.S. is criticizing the hunt. Yeah, dolphins are cute. The idea of someone killing one is probably uncomfortable to pretty much any culture that hasn't spent centuries eating them. But I think there's a bit of ethnocentricsm going on here.

How many cattle, chicken, and turkeys get slaughtered every day in the U.S. in the most horrible ways--nevermind the horrific conditions most have to endure from birth until death? Where's the international outcry over that?

The primary complaint of this video seems to be that the dolphins die slowly, but the video fails to mention that's only if the procedure is done wrong. It's done that way precisely because Japanese laws require the butchering to be done quickly and when done correctly they die within seconds. I imagine the whales killed by Inuit's in their traditional hunts don't die much quicker (see http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131008/save-whales-inuit-whalers-wary-whaling-commission-quotas for more details).

Basically, while I find the method they use to kill disturbingly inhumane, I also don't see the need for the international community to intervene in the hunt unless it can be shown that the hunt is adversely affecting the population. The primary reason hunting dolphins is stupid is because the meat contains alarmingly high concentrations of mercury which pose a major health risk to humans that habitually eat the meat.

That one guy does look strikingly like Eddie Mercury! *quality lulz

Mercury-Redstone 1, the infamous "4-inch flight".. Very important fail as it revealed a lot of faults in one simple and yet comical fashion..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Redstone_1

Next up: Does salt dissolve in mercury?

From Reddit:
"This can be explained through the principles of cohesion and adhesion. Water has strong cohesion to itself and strong adhesion to the sponge. Mercury has strong cohesion to itself but weak adhesion to the sponge.

Cohesion arises from attraction between something and itself. Cohesion is strong in water due to the large amount of hydrogen bonding between water molecules, causing water to stick to itself. Cohesion is strong in liquid mercury due to something called metallic bonding between metal cations and delocalized electrons in the liquid metallic liquid, causing the mercury to stick to itself.

Adhesion arises from attraction between something and something else. Since water molecules are polar, they can hydrogen bond with the polyurethane sponge. Mercury's metallic bonding, however, does not interact with the non-metallic sponge. Mercury will, however, adsorb to other metals such as gold or silver and form an amalgam.

Basic mercury clean up kits usually contain metal sulfides, which can react with the metal, disrupting metallic bonding, and permitting other forms of intermolecular forces to facilitate clean up."

Ok, so here is a very good point.
Because of strength and density, squeezing the air out of the sponge, while submerged under the mercury..., where is that air supposed to go?

Displacement. for the mercury to fill the sponge, the air must be pushed out and displace mercury while submerged, Can air, displace the Mercury in this instance? that's another interesting factor here.

Surface tension sounds plausible, but with the pressure of squeezing the sponge, I would think that tension would break even a little.

Adhesion. Water is polar, its why you get surface tension and I think that's why it sticks to most surfaces. Mercury adheres to itself pretty good but for different reasons. You'll notice it runs off surfaces in a similar way water runs of a hydrophobic surface - it doesn't streak because it doesn't stick.

Now, perhaps if it were an aluminium sponge...

I suggest that it's most importantly to do with the surface tension of mercury. When the mercury covers any of the sponge's holes it forms a new little surface where the strong surface tension matters. You can tell this by looking at any transparent container of mercury such as old barometers and such. The meniscus bends down at the edge rather than the equivalent container of water where it bends up a little. If you pour out a bunch of mercury on a flat surface it will spread out so it's about half a centimeter deep iirc, i used to play a bit with some as a kid. (sometimes in a vac chamber, but not always!)

Here's a thought though. Unfortunately he had parts of the sponge poking out (possibly because of the limits of his container/supply of mercury) and so air could refill the holes in the sponge and allow it to retake its preferred shape. But if it was entirely submerged in the mercury and squeezed, which would be stronger? The springiness of the sponge to want to return to its shape sucking mercury in, or the surface tension of the mercury and the sponge just stays squashed. And i know that packing material is more springy than a bath sponge (or a natural sponge).

Next up: Mercury - Will it Blend?

I have often said that the sailors of the future will sail on sponge ships upon seas of mercury.

OK, so Why?

Why won't it enter the sponge? why won't the liquid enter the negative spaces in the sponge?

I do know there are some materials that don't absorb water - I have some dish towels (bought at the dollar store) that won't absorb water, absolutely useless. But I think that's different as I doubt they would absorb anything.

So why not Mercury? it's definitely more dense than water. Are the molecules larger than the H2O Molecule? I don't think it is, and even if it was, surly they are not larger than the holes in the sponge.

I'd like to see this tried with different types of sponges.

This seems dangerous. I know he's wearing gloves, but my understanding is that the real danger of working with mercury like this is that it evaporates rather quickly, turning into an inhalant.

When breathed in, it can be quite toxic.http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/mercury.html

"Synchronous rotation! Will eventually happen to the Earth too! It's rotational rate will slow down to eventually match its revolution rate around the sun."
Not necessarily - there are other stable orbits, like Mercury, that has three rotations per two revolutions - where a single Mercury "day" will take two Mercury years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29#Spin.E2.80.93orbit_resonance
Although a 1:1 relation is more common, there are others..

Your video, Freddy Mercury is alive and well, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It looks like my kind-of-cheeky title is backfiring a little.
No, he doesn't sound at all like Mercury, that's why I added "all kidding aside". I'm sorry, there is no /sarcasm checkbox in a video submission :-/