My assumption is that people don't do these things because they are intrinsically better (even though I can accept that they could easily be), they do it to make themselves seem important and special.

Eating sushi in "the correct way" is also not popular, the wrong way is popular - who's the one trying to avoid conforming to the peasantry now?

People make fun of this video, because it's not about teaching you how it should be done, it's about him showing off all the fancy things he knows about sushi and talking japanese; Look I'm so cool, I do it the right way. It reminds me of that hilarious application video that was spoofed by Michael Cera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Is_Nothing_(video_r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9)

If the main point is to teach people to do something right, then teach it nicely - it's even more compounded by the level of self-importance in this thread.

Some times there's a correct way and there's another perfectly fine way - I know, shocking. People don't all like the things you like, oh gosh, say it isn't so.

You, @NinjaInHeat and @arekin (and I suppose the guy in the video) are the three amigos who want to cram the "correct sushi" down everyones' throats - I am not trying to force you to eat the regular rice-cake sushi that normal people do, you can do what you want.

In essence what you would call "correct sushi" is an entirely different dish than what is normally known as sushi, so it's sort of a silly argument in the end.

I guess my main point of contrition has nothing to do with sushi, but to do with the way in which it is presented. It stinks of aristocracy - people who know the right way and therefore snub their nose at all the others who clearly "just don't get it" - well fuck, there's not really much to get, you like to eat it in a certain way - whoopdefrickingdoo.

"You know, real hambruger is hand picked from the kobecow and processed right in front of you. And be careful to only use a light touch of ketchup as a pallate cleanser, and to convey the intended feelings of camaraderie that the chef wanted you to feel with him and his cultural heritage.. and be sure to drink plenty of Sprite - this is the way to properly enjoy hamburger, otherwise you might as well just eat some raw fish or something like a fucking retard who don't even know that you only lightly dip the corner of the bun in grey poupon mustard".

Bah humbug.

Mustard and ketchup.

Uhhhh, Party All The Time-Eddie Murphy? "How bad could music be" should have been the motto that year....For all the fans here of some of the cheesiest music ever released, 86' was one of the weakest and whitest for pop music-The UK dished-out some real cheese that year as well-

I recall spinning only ONE pop LP that year over and over, Better to Travel-Swing Out Sister, the only new talent worth the mustard, engineered and recorded wonderfully, with a sound that stood out as original without rehash.....The mid eighties were a goat turd for good music.

I mean come ON!? Graceland?? Lionel Ritchie?! Mr. Mister??!

I remember losing all faith in rock and or roll that year and listening to mostly trad jazz and heavy metal for the next 4 years. Pop music hit an all-time low in 1986.

and here I just was commenting and defending us officers on the other "police state" video (where law enforcement handled it properly) and then here comes a video like this.

Only thing to say is the cop made a mistake and obviously become completely flustered by it as he probably knew he was being filmed. This does not give him the right to be an asshole. I have to ask what is the age of the male that is taking the PAS (preliminary alcohol screening) test? If he is under 21 there is a no tolerance policy towards underage drivers with alcohol in there system. He could of blew .01 and still be arrested. Anyone under the age of 21 should not be consuming alcohol (I know I know, we all did it) but if you do, DON’T DRIVE.

That being said, just a few notes so everyone knows (may only apply to California). In California (and I believe everywhere) you can be under the legal limit of .08 BAC and still be arrested for a DUI. There are two subsections of the Vehicle code for a dui, VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b) which are usually both charged. The B section is only for if you are over .08 BAC. The (A) section can be used if you are driving erratically or unsafely even if under the legal limit. That section is also used for when driving under the influence of a drug (pot, prescription meds, etc..). 9 Times out of 10 in court the charge of VC 23152(A) will get dropped to a wet and reckless which is treated like a DUI but with fewer consequences.

Now, please do not take the advice of these other people and refuse all testing (in California). In California, there is a law called Implied Consent, please read here:

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm

but to sum it up, you have to give breath, blood, or urine when arrested with probable cause for a DUI. This may not sound fair but it was put in place so people could not refuse all testing then go to court and argue there was no proof of their intoxication. There are penalties if you do not give samples so please read that link. This law can help both ways, as an example if you really are not under the influence of alcohol or at least under the legal limit, then the blood test (most accurate) will show this. This will either liberate you in court showing you were not intoxicated as the officer said or at least get your DUI dropped to a wet and reckless if you were under the influence but at a legal level. Of course, if you were really under the influence or got into a DUI crash nothing is really going to help you but a good lawyer.

Just as an example, a woman was stopped for making an illegal U-Turn. Before this officers admitted she had been driving ok. Once officers pulled her over to issue a citation they immediate smelled alcohol coming from the car and her person. The female agreed to a breath test and blew a .38 BAC! For most people including guys, you would be unconscious if you had that much alcohol in your system. The woman was charged for a DUI but more importantly got alcohol counseling because the court ordered it. This is just an example of times where people who drink on a regular basis (alcoholics) may not show signs of alcohol impairment. They are such sever alcoholics who can function to an extent while intoxicated. That DUI arrest probably saved the women’s life.

All I am trying to say is I know it may seem unfair or prying to have an implied consent law here in California. All it is meant to do is to encourage people when they go out to drink to please GET A CAB or SOBER driver to take you home. Sober does not mean you “feel” sober, sober means no alcohol or you have followed the guidelines issued by California DMV on how many drinks / how many hours it takes to be sober enough to drive.

Lastly, I will say there are ways of helping yourself during a DUI situation so educate yourself and do some research (not that rusty penny or mustard or barely blowing your breath crap) if you are really worried that one day you’re going to be pulled over after consuming alcohol.

I don't feel compelled to provide concrete data because I never took a concrete stance for or against scientific spending. Even when referencing military research it was because some people commented about cutting military spending as though that would have no effect on research funding.

My posts were to point out that the question of research with merit is a very difficult one to answer especially if "the greater good" is used as a criteria because "greater good" encompasses things outside of science and which may be much more immediate than the results of research (ie healthcare, employment, international affairs, etc.)

Those things being high impact and immediate could have a negative impact when using "greater good" in a simplified way because each person's cost-benefit analysis of research will vary depending on their circumstances. I can only assume that the greater good is some kind of aggregate so you cant ignore the individual.

In fact, in order to use the greater good as a measuring stick to even START this debate in a "concrete" way as you say, the following would have to be answered and I don't think you could get a room of people to agree on the answers to them much less a nation or planet.


Who is affected by the greater good?
What do we mean by greater good (greater outcome, greater meaning, greater support)?
How is it measured?
Over what period of time?
In what way and to what are we comparing it?
What terms is the final measure of the cost-benefit analysis? Dollars? Happiness? Health? Opinion?

You said your reaction is not fanatic, yet you're attacking me as a foe despite the fact I never actually rallied against ur stance.

This entire time I'm essentially saying "people need to be more aware of the larger picture when trying to answer this question because both sides seem to focus on the smaller parts that support them (and therefore come across semi-fanatic). Furthermore if a proper analysis is used then ud likely find some research doesnt cut the mustard and some is not as insignificant as it might have first seemed."

To which you've promptly replied each time explaining about how mistaken I am in my understanding of the importance of scientific research. I left a piece of your last post so you can see how aggressively you address me directly despite me never having said I disagree with, but only with the vigor of which people will argue scientific research even when the other side has a valid point...or in this case were not making the point ur arguing against to begin with.

As someone who loves science and believe research is absolutely important, I think both sides do a horrible job of trying to address the issue. To say that seemingly insignificant research is obviously unnecessary is wrong, as much of science is built upon research never intended for the purpose at hand.

However the opposite is not always true either. Not all science and research brings enough value to the table to justify the spending to do it.

If you're trying to use "the greater good" as a measure for what solutions to use or what problems are most important, then you have to accept that even some things like ecological research or environmental issues may not cut the mustard if their scope or impact are not large enough.

I also find it interesting when people clamor to cut military spending as if they didn't understand that a lot of current technology and research is piggy backing off research done for military purposes (and some of which may be funded by military spending).

This is what pass for mustard if foreign countries ? Eww.

3 egg yolks
1 tsp English Mustard
300ml Ground nut oil
Season with salt, pepper, fresh lemon juice

What, NO MUSTARD?! [I would have walked out too]

Hobbit Hole Breakfast: Two eggs fried right into the center of grilled Cheddar bun halves. Served with two strips of bacon and crispy hash browns topped with melted shredded Cheddar cheese and bacon.

Shire Sausage Skillet: Shire sausage with seasoned red-skinned potatoes, sautéed mushrooms and fire-roasted peppers and onions served on a sizzling skillet. Topped with shredded Cheddar cheese and two eggs.

Frodo's Pot Roast Skillet: Slow-cooked pot roast, herb-roasted carrots, celery, mushrooms and onions over broccoli and seasoned red-skinned potatoes served on a hot sizzling skillet. Topped with shredded Cheddar cheese and served with dinner bread.

The Ring Burger: A hand-pressed burger topped with Pepper Jack cheese, bacon, sautéed mushrooms and mayo on a grilled Cheddar cheese bun. Crowned with three crispy onion rings and served with lettuce, tomato, red onions, pickles and a side of wavy-cut French fries.

Gandalf's Gobble Melt: Tender sliced turkey breast and savory stuffing topped with melted Swiss cheese placed on grilled potato bread with a cranberry honey mustard spread. Served with your choice of side and gravy for dipping.

Dwarves' Turkey & Dressing Dinner: Tender sliced turkey breast, savory stuffing, gravy and cranberry sauce served with your choice of two sides and dinner bread. Feeds a band of Dwarves. Or one hungry human.....or Bear.

Lonely Mountain Treasure: Seed Cake French Toast cut into nine squares and served with a side of cream cheese icing for dipping.

Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies: Six bite-sized round red velvet Pancake Puppies® made with white chocolate chips and sprinkled with powdered sugar. Served with a side of cream cheese icing for dipping.

Bilbo's Berry Smoothie: Made with a delicious blend of raspberries, blueberries, pomegranate and nonfat yogurt.

Lone-Lands Campfire Cookie Milk Shake: A thick hand-dipped milk shake with a delicious blend of premium vanilla ice cream and s'mores cookie pieces topped with a dollop of whipped cream. Served with a little extra in the tin.

@rottenseed I'm not even using 'me' as the yardstick by which I'm judging this sift poorly, I'm using @dag 's previously stated position on things like this, and the entry quoted above from the guidelines. The sift is a place to browse videos that have merit in one form or another (be they funny, smart, thought provoking, what have you). As this video has no merit other than being to turn people on, it doesn't belong here. Why do people keep trying to push this type of stuff onto the sift? It's not like it's in ANY way hard to find if you want it, why can't this be just ONE place you won't find it?

And I don't think a simple 'if I don't classify it as porn then it should be here' is really going to cut the mustard.

>> ^deathcow:

reminds me to pick up some feta

And don't forget the spicy mustard!

Meh. She was good, don't get me wrong, but as Hunter points out... it's hard to screw this song up!
This is my favorite cover of Creep. (audio wise, not sure what I think of the video)

>> ^Hunter:

I'm not sure how this works, but here's an AMAZING "Creep" cover from the sift.
http://videosift.com/video/Homeless-Mustard-covers-Creep-by-Radiohead

I'm not sure how this works, but here's an AMAZING "Creep" cover from the sift.

http://videosift.com/video/Homeless-Mustard-covers-Creep-by-Radiohead

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.


The point being that his full name doesn't add up to 666. Not only that but Neros original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So arbitrarily picking out Nero Caeser as his name because it adds up to 666 and saying this is who John is talking about doesn't cut the mustard. This wasn't who John was talking about, because the man of sin has not yet been revealed. It was prophecy for the future, not for Johns present.