Plus, it's fucking windy, what do you think will happen?

I think it kind of depends on what he means by 16,000x louder? If he's talking in decibels, then it's already a logarithmic scale, so 16,000x times higher output amplitude is about 84db? higher (which is no joke) not quite sure on the maths there. 16,000db higher is basically impossible unless we are talking a supernova or something.

That puts it at over 204db which is apparently the same volume as the Saturn V launch. Which would definitely kill you, but maybe not 8000 times over... I mean once really does the trick.

If he's talking about the energy input, it seems that's a different thing according to wikipedia, and would result in an increase of 42db, which puts it at 162db, which is about the same as a 12-guage.

He may also mean that the sound is that loud at source, but as the guy was probably trying to say as he was squirming, the distance matters. The sound energy will be dissipated over a 2D shell and so I'd guess it drops off proportional to distance squared plus some extra for loss as it goes.

All of that is in air, it's quite a different matter in the water as I think the force is transmitted more efficiently.

Either way, every 10 seconds for months? No thanks.

This can't be a gag; it's too expensive for that---that many studio musicians, called at Union scale, plus the recording studio time, then the sound engineer's time...
What are the economics of this? Why does it wonderfully exist?

I don't get how Trump and the GOP say the Democrats need to be willing to negotiate. They are offering $1.6 Billion in additional funding. But Trump is acting like Veruca Salt, and stomping his feet, saying he wants $5.7 Billion, and he wants it now. That's not how negotiations work. You want $5.7, they offer $1.6, you come down to say $4.6, they come back at $2.3, you come back with $4 and permanent residence status for Dreamers, they come back with $3 and permanent resident status, then you meet at $3.5 and permanent resident status. You don't just keep acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum and demanding the $5.7, and if you don't get it, the other side is the one's being unreasonable.

The "Pro-life" party, that loves the death penalty and war, so not really pro-life at all, is now holding millions of Americans (800k, plus their families, plus the millions of people who depend on those services) hostage in an act of economic terrorism, until the other side fully caves into their demands. They are the ones not willing to negotiate, but are doing some 1984 level doublespeak, and blaming it all on the Democrats. And the Fox News types are eating it up, which is probably why Trump thinks he's winning. "Just look. Steve says I'm doing good and that all real Americans support me."

They need to pass a law, that Congress, their aids and staff, the President, their aids and staff, the White House aids and staff... all don't get paid on any shutdown. If they've already given up their salary (I love how Trump followers commend Trump for giving up his salary, while ignoring he makes more a year off the Secret Service than he would in years of salary) then they have to reimburse that salary they would have made in that time. Congress and the President may not take back pay, and it takes a 60% vote to authorize the aids and staff back pay, but only if all other Federal workers also get their back pay first in a separate and prior authorization.

Part of the problem with “organic” food (nonsense term, all food is organic by definition) is the fear-mongering around GMOs.

GMOs are going to be a big part of how we feed a population of 7 billion plus. Between the increased yield and lower requirement for pesticides, they have undeniable benefits.

True enough about Maasai, 44+- sucks no matter what kills you.
I don't believe they have perfect dietary health, but do think they indicate genetics play a huge roll in how we process foods.

My short research indicated 1/2 serving of seafood per day on average....whatever percentage that comes out to doesn't bother me....plus occasional pork.

My grandmother ate meat almost daily and lived to days from 97, healthy the whole time except for lung issues the last years. Anecdotal evidence can be misleading.

Fewer animal foods isn't none. I agree, average Americans could probably benefit from cutting their meat consumption in half or more, but none at all wouldn't be healthier for most people.

I say the lack of top athletes who are vegan contradicts your last theory. Humans are omnivores and work best as such.

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

The yt info is:

Le projet le plus fou de l'été !
Le premier tourniquet tracté par des bœufs en plein milieu d'un lac. Les règles du jeu sont simples sur ce drôle de manège : qui tiendra le plus longtemps !?
Grâce à un système de déclenchement fait avec 2 mousquetons de largage, dès qu'une personne lâche, la corde glisse et l'autre est automatiquement larguée. Au final, la force centrifuge était telle que personne n'a réussi à tenir au delà des 30/35 km/h !

The craziest project of the summer!
The first ever roundabout (literally turnstile, means something like the rotating swings in children's playgrounds) towed by oxen in the middle of a lake. The rules are simple on this amusing ride: Who will hold on for the longest!?
Thanks to a trigger system made with 2 release carabiners, as soon as a person lets go the other is automatically released.
In the end, the centrifugal force was such that nobody managed to hold on beyond 30/35km/h (approx 20mph in U.S. measures).

"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

I'm pretty sure that if the tables were turned and somehow Hillary ran as a Republican, the Democrats would have voted for Trump as well. We tend to overlook things like reason and sanity in the USA when it comes to people/teams/etc that we hate.

Plus Trump was selling a message that a lot of people bought into, that they were somehow going to go back to a time when factory and coal jobs were a thing for middle class union type people. People who didn't work in those fields knew it was bogus from the get go, but when you live in a shitty area and desperately want to scroll back progress so that you can get your guaranteed 30+ an hour job/lifetime pension without a college education, you tend to overlook small things like guys grabbing pussies.

You are right, in a sane country Hillary probably would have been elected. She also probably wouldn't have been eligible to run because she would have beaten out Obama in 2008. She didn't because people were so desperate for something, anything to change in our fucked up government that they went with Obama. Hell, I even voted for him the first time. But, we lost our sanity sometime around the period when elected an actor over a generally 'nice guy' kind of president. Said actor/governor then instituted the following amazing things:

* The War on Drugs - utter failure
* Reaganomics - depends on who you ask, but it pretty much fucked us for years to come.
* Wonderful changes and cuts to education - See previous. They are still trying to undo the fuckery that was done to education in the 80's.
* Increased military spending to astronomical levels - pretty much fucked anyone not working for defense contractors.
* Destabilized Nicaragua and pissed off Iran worse at us - yeah, that didn't work out for us.
* Largely ignored the AIDs epidemic - tragedy on multiple levels.
* Etc

That fucker is still viewed as one of the best presidents and Carter as one of the worst.

While what she did was undeniably wrong, I don't think you can equate rape with a false accusation of rape.

Sorry, they are simply not equivalent, any more than scamming someone online is the same as an armed home invasion. Both are wrong, but one is much more serious.

Plus, there's a far more serious issue with what you're suggesting.

Rape is already one of the most under-reported and poorly prosecuted crimes in the country. So much so that many rape victims feel like they've been violated twice, once during the crime and then again trying to get a conviction.

It's a harrowing experience and adding the possibility of a criminal sentence if someone decides you're lying will only make it worse.

This woman definitely deserves a severe punishment (and more appropriately the guys she accused deserve some kind of compensation from her), but this is definitely an outlier case.

Rape is far more common than false rape accusation.

Conservatives: FAKE DATA. NASA is just saying this to make money [but the denial stuff is all sponsored by the fossil fuel industry who somehow isn't biased]. Climate change is fake. If you think about it, CO2 is good for plants [most are doing their max exchange, and it makes them have less nutrition... plus most of the globe isn't green, it's blue or desert... would be one thing if there was a way to keep that CO2 where the plants actually were and down where they were], its what they breath. It's a war on coal and oil. Ice levels in the Antarctic are rising [some data suggests it has, and may, but it is offset by Greenland ice loss alone, let alone ice loss from every other place like Alaska, Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, etc]. It's cold here on January 3, so much for global warming [odd they never mention the problem on August 23 or whatever]? They said there's going to be an ice age back in the 70's [they can't show the science papers, just an article in Newsweek or Time], and just last year or so, they said solar minimums will result in another mini-ice age [again, no, nothing about climate in the actual science paper, just the press running their own version of the paper].

The Love of Christ everyone. A continuing shinning example of why I hate the faith. Treat others as you'd have others treat you. Anyhow, I agree, no need for a ban, at least yet, though that is a new low, but in line with the rest of the Trump supporters. It again, just shows how evil and vile the faith is, because that's what they actually think Christ would act like, do and say, and have zero conviction in their heart otherwise. The modern right is the biggest reason cited why people leave the faith or are turned off by the faith, so the more Trump supporters dig in, the more and more people will leave the faith. Hopefully they'll turn to reason, or Paganism, anything but stick to a faith where they are happy at the death of a man who served his nation far better than the man they praise. As to Bob himself, I don't know if he's just a troll or what, my issue has never been with him, but the faith he represents. I am surrounded by people like him at home and work, and it isn't the people, it's their faith... sort of like how they say of the gays, "love the sinner hate the sin", I just hate everything about them, but I'm sure they are just fine people otherwise.

While I didn't like McCain, I at least respected his service. I respect the fact that he REFUSED to leave the POW camp when it was offered to him because there were others there before him, and he'd go on for another four plus years more of torture because of his refusal. He could have left the service long before he was even shot down, as he was injured on the deck of his ship when he was accidentally shot by another plane on the deck, an indecent that killed 134 other sailors and injured 161 others, himself included... of course many on the far right blame him for somehow being shot in that case and say he caused the deaths... As bad as he was on his political philosophy and the whole Palin thing (which I agree with what was pointed out already, was an attempt to lure the far right and women voters, and it worked on the far right, he probably wouldn't have got nearly as many votes as he did without her, because the narrative had already shifted far right on Fox and talk radio), he at least served and didn't dodge service because of a bone spur.

And this video just goes to show how gullible people are, "he's a Muslim" and he has to refute it. He has to keep saying how good Obama is as a man, and how true to himself he is, but they boo him. They are so wrapped up in the Fox and talk radio narrative, and their little social media bubbles, they don't know how to vet things they see and hear... they may do a quick Google search, not realizing that Google changes its search results to match what you'll find most agreeable... and then even if they do see a link they disagree with, they'll ignore it, find ones they like and coddle their bias.... I should know, I was among them for far too long. Up until basically this 2008 election, where I moved from Republican to supporting Paul, to supporting Obama, then loosing my faith shortly after the election because of the far right's actions...

The tricky thing about full auto is that most people avoid it primarily because of the severe penalties. Simply owning one that isn't registered and taxed is opening yourself to up to 10 years in federal prison plus a fine of up to 250k. If you commit a crime with one, they will hit you for the crime and the NFA penalty.

It isn't difficult at all to modify most current semi auto rifles into full auto. Heck, some of the older ones like the SKS can actually duplicate full auto fire by accident via slamfire. People don't do it because of the heavy penalty if you get caught, but it 'is' doable.

Of course, that doesn't take into account international concerns over automatic weapons, where access is usually limited to the military style rifles.

As an aside, you will see people here exploit loopholes like the bump stock to simulate full auto because they can't be subject to the NFA. Personally I think that is a bigger issue than printable guns, at least in the US. I think we still have something like 400-500k of those still floating around. To me it is far more of a 'sky is falling' issue than plastic printed guns, but that's just me.