Amateur videos on you tube by guys who clearly haven't read or understood the scientific journal articles on the subject are part of the problem and confusion.

The point of recycling is to reduce energy use and transportation in manufacturing materials... So yeah, it's part of the solution and not to be thrown away.

Yes, the plant is warming, and scientists are agreed on that.
Yes, humans are adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere which contributes to warming.
What is the severity of the warming over the next 100 years, and what difference do our actions today make, and what cost do those actions have?

See the first 2 points are agreed and help understand some of the problem. The trick though is that the severity is still known with less certainty, read the details in the latest IPCC AR5 report if you doubt me. The error bars within the scenarios(different carbon emissions we reduce or increase to) span multiple degrees of temperature. The error bars are only as accurate as the current days models, which still are uncertain of the sign to attribute to water vapor as a feedback. The water vapor that contributes more to the greenhouse effect than all other GHG's combined. How great is the economic cost of reducing our emissions to meet each scenario? That's no in the IPCC report. What is the alternative cost of adapting to the temperature ranges if we just continue emitting? Again not there.

The trouble is there DOES still exist uncertainty on a great many aspects of the problem. Random amateurs proclaiming otherwise on youtube doesn't change that. Until we've got a good grasp on the cost/benefit differences between reducing emissions and adapting to changes, we can't make any claims on action X is obvious because of climate change.

Now, I'm not advocating we do nothing. Electric cars are a huge opportunity, and the technology is finally hitting the threshold of being cheaper than gas. Adopting that technology makes economic sense. A fringe benefit is that it reduces emissions from transportation drastically too.

There are solutions other than redistribution of wealth through naive/blind carbon taxes.

Alright, I'm by no means against kids eating healthy, but this is a truly dumb and hypocritical way of going about it.

How the hell is food designed to be addictive? Welp, mostly by making it actually delicious. Fast food doesn't control the market on that, mostly anything that tastes good can be considered "addictive".

Then we go into a graph that seemingly gets larger and larger, implying that these diseases are HUGELY on the rise (which for all I know, they could be. But there's no actual evidence, just a rising graph that turns into a heart rate monitor.)

Infact, just perusing their website they have a whole whack of bogeymen arguments and excuses with nothing that really backs them up. Two parts stand out, One, they want to take action against the CEO of mcdonalds by telling him to take down a website about happy meals. The site has a bunch of stupid videos, games, and even a couple educational things about recycling and animals... very little to do with actually pushing the food on kids.

The second part was about something also somewhat touched on in the video: Food companies say that it's the parents responsibility to determine what their kids eat. Is it really up to the parents?

The answer for them is basically a long winded ":Yes, but because businesses decide to use marketing targeted at our kids, they made it REALLY hard, and therefore, technically, no."


Look, end of the day, parents are responsible for their kids. It doesn't matter HOW much advertising goes into the kids, when you determine what their breakfast will be (by buying it at a store, i.e. cereal), what their lunch will be, and then cooking them dinner, you 100% are responsible for what your kids eat.

The alternative is saying "Here's 10 bucks, get yourself something at school" which is ALSO determining what your kids eat. Kids are weak, given the option they WILL go for the fries with gravy for lunch.

Both versions determine what your kid is going to eat, and both are decided upon by YOU. Stop blaming corporations for doing what corporations do, and just take responsibility.

I'll second that.
I built a nearly identical plane 25 years ago, it cost about $125, and another $200 for the controller setup. It's wings were made of fiberglass/graphite spars inside dense foam cores...easy to build, easy to repair, and didn't hurt if it hit a person. (it did only have about a 15 min flight time without thermals, but batteries and motors are better now) Why are they going with carbon fiber for a non-combat fixed wing drone over fiberglass and/or foam (or are they testing combat drones)? Is it just to make it cost more? Why not just CNC mill them out of titanium billets? ;-)

$50K? Something smells here. Should be under $1K unless there's a lot we aren't seeing. Maybe it's all in the electronics and optics (it would need a bit more than a cell phone camera), but it still seems exorbitant. I think it could be more efficient to make them cheap and disposable/recyclable rather than 'hardened'.

*promote corporate recycled music day

If you used recycled circuit boards, your floor could end up cheaper than your board.

Crab fisherman, among dozens and dozens of others. Being a cop is less dangerous than many many jobs not considered 'dangerous', but because cops complain and whine so much, most people would believe being a cop is the most dangerous job out there. Statistics say it's no where close.
EDIT:The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers
(notice anything missing there?)

There are more unpredictable dangerous situations to be dealt with in MANY other professions. It's not a lack of preparation that kills crab fishermen, it's the unpredictability of the ocean. It MAY be true (can't find statistics) that cops are more likely to be attacked by a human than most other professions, that doesn't make it more dangerous or unpredictable than other unavoidable, unpredictable dangers in other jobs.

Far more civilians are killed by cops than cops are killed by civilians. (This means your assumption/assertion that civilians can assume cops won't kill them, but cops can assume civilians will kill them is ridiculously wrong and backwards.) Last year, 111 cops died in the line of duty, of those, only 39 were 'killed' (as in homicide, 33 by firearms), the rest were all accidental. In that time, cops intentionally killed 316 civilians (that number also does not include 'accidental' deaths). That's almost a 10-1 ratio where it's 10 times more likely that a cop will be a killer than be killed.

It is no longer a minority of cops that perceive threats everywhere and 'take things too far' before they become actual threats. If citizens did this, they go to jail. Cops should not be above the law in any way.

I agree with 'cops should be on camera 100% of the time they're being cops (which is all the time, so includes at home, if they're armed there). It may not have avoided or minimized the Brown case though, it may easily have proven he was shot at and executed as he surrendered, adding fuel to the fire.

PS dangerous and hazardous are synonyms.
PPS. It's @newtboy....one word.

No, if someone constantly creates strawman arguments and refuses to concede when their bullshit is called (and instead recycles said bullshit) then they are trolls.

It just seems to me that this is myopic, short term thinking (by the military, not you) that actually hurts their operational effectiveness by
1)being wasteful when a simple box to catch empties could be designed to be failsafe, light, and maybe even function as 'armor' when full and flotation when empty. Also (and far more important to the military), every dollar saved by 'recycling' the brass is a dollar that could be spent on more and/or better equipment for soldiers.
and 2)creating hostility towards your forces in those that may have been neutral or even on your side, before their child was burned over 90% of their body by the shells falling out of the chopper, or their straw home burned down, or their fields/rice patties/hog pens are now full of burnt 'propellant' (not always gunpowder, and often more contaminating than gunpowder) and hot brass, ruining or contaminating them permanently when it could be prevented so easily. They have put big money into trying to create a less toxic 'bullet' out of carbon/other exotics, knowing it's an issue world wide. (I don't know how far that's gone yet.) I can't understand why they would ignore the other part of the bullet?

I see your point about 'informing' the public, but that could be done just as easily and maybe better with a go-pro (or a few) and commentary, no?
True enough, it may not have been the only escape chopper or trip, but make no mistake there was a HUGE shortage of escape methods, not everyone got a ride out, and there's no reason to short change the victims or require more dangerous trips in and out just so one reporter can see first hand instead of on video....not that I see.

Tsk tsk. Should have recycled.

A lot less wasteful, yeah, but there's quite a big difference in the structural integrity of cast and machined parts, so for many applications casting is just not an option.

Still, recycling and whatnot.

Aluminium is one of the easiest materials to recycle. Although I'd say molding most of the shape and "cleaning" up the piece would be less wasteful of cutting edges and power...

they have a process known in the industry as recycling

neat idea, but the fad of playing with toys made out of coke bottles is not going to catch on. I agree, instead of gimmicks with attachments which will just add to the waste, just recycle them back into coke bottles.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'marketing, branding, caps' to 'marketing, branding, caps, vietnam, recycle, reuse, coca cola, bottles, campaign' - edited by lucky760

Climate change-The hot-topic for a new age of ineffectuals...something for the insects to rally-around and discuss which produces nay but fodder for the same passive-aggressive types who are being seduced by their desire to trade practical action (whatever that could be) for polemic intercourse with themselves and others like them on the internet....

....people who are passionate to a fault and use forums like this to espouse their anger and frustration with tomes of keystrokes AT and not WITH others they deem unworthy, those ignorant and simpering few with opinions or observations dissimilar to theirs (and lower than 130 I.Q.'s....*cough), who know they are helpless to act to stop the high-speed train of planet-fucking (wage-slave-required and dutifully induced through the programming by adepts of semantic mind-fucking).This delusional empowerment, with all the invisible superpowers of new 'information' gives them the license and ability to do absolutely nothing to correct or marginally disrupt the pace of the so-labeled change while becomming better dicks in doing-so.

This fan-driven subject of climate change they use not only to deride those with any dissenting opinion and doubt regarding the mechanics and unfolding of what our big, blue marble is handing the creatures onnit, but also and most evidently obvious, to bolster their own superiority and self-satisfaction in their ability to process the distraction of disinformation/information/datum-ad-nauseum, and then condense it into how clever they can be in being complete assholes without breaking rules of accepted decorum so they can hear themselves bark, howl, and foment.

Smug, helpless, and irritatingly predictable in their helplessness to do anything more effectual than to add more used motor oil to the bonfire of their own vanity.

I would ask these irritating bugs what ARE you prepared to do to alter the course of the 'changes' in the 'terminal climate' described above? Recycle and drive a hybrid? Sacrifice anything but another trip to a polling-station? Oh I know, sit at your computer keyboard and grow more incensed while going-on with your business of spouting and shouting from a mountain of trash that you add-to daily by converting oxygen to more life-giving C02 and buying shit you don't need with paper you are forced to trade for 'bads and disservices??'

Thought so.

Fuck global warming in it's ass and let the planet shake and quiver with change as humans and/or their own slave-like actions continue to feed the earth-furnace. The bigger fish to fry and serve head-on have you by the short and curlies and we're all bio-fuel for future generations