ughh are you kidding me?
I guess mom forgot to tivo sponge bob

Sponge Bob got shot!

Your video, New Meat-eating Sponge Looks Like a Harp, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^lv_hunter:

2:50 into the clip wtf is that pink vieny thing on the lower left?!


It's a sea anemone!

Hahaha, holy shit - did you see what he did with that sponge? This man can't be trusted to wash my fucking dishes, let alone become second in line to the presidency.

Sponge definitely aims to please =o)

I wonder if this is a retained/infected nasal tampon or sponge, either post-operative or from severe prior epistaxis. Acute or chronic sinusitis should not have this presentation without the presence of a foreign body.

*edit* similar to : http://youtu.be/dnIw0qdnEqs

>> ^spawnflagger:

I like the idea, but didn't he do a simple product search ?
or hell, even the domain itself - http://www.gojo.com/ . It's a brand of hand cleaner (good stuff too) that's been around for years.
I don't see how he isn't infringing on the brand/trademark "gojo", so a lot of legal battles ahead...
Oh, and lastly - cancer. Do you want a high-powered cell phone transmitter next to your brain, or a low powered bluetooth headset?


Trademarks are only supposed to protect against similar products. It would be trademark infringement to make another soap or cleanser and call it Gojo. A shampoo would probably be considered too similar; maybe something cleaning-related like a sponge or scrubbing brush, too. A headband with a suction cup is not in the same market so it shouldn't be in violation.

The microwaves that are emitted by a cell phone are non-ionizing and thus, not linked to cancer. They're in the same carcinogen group (2B) as coffee and pickles.

Yes I found a reasonably clear explanation, and added it as a postscript to my earlier comment after you'd quoted it, but before I got the e-mail notification.
>> ^messenger:

[...]
If momentum = velocity mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.
A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.

The cradle is better than the track because it allows for larger weights, where the track would require a denser material or hollow particles; but the track is easier for measuring incoming and outgoing force because on a steady grade, it’s simply a measure of distance, which is easy to capture roughly, even without a camera.

If momentum = velocity*mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.

A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.>> ^oritteropo:

Thanks <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.
There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.
>> ^messenger:
That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

In case you're wondering... dogs have been hanging out with humans for over 25000 years. Cats have been sponging off us for less than 10000.

If you think humans evolved to where we are without those furry brothers, you would be wrong.

The ability of dogs/wolves to "read" human emotions is unparalleled. Neither apes nor cetaceans nor cats have demonstrated the depth of understanding that dogs have consistently shown for their human companions. Show me a cat that can not only know when an epileptic attack is about to occur, but will alert her friend to it before it happens.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Rainbow Sponge Orgasm. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

There's a Sponge Bob conspiracy?

@bcglorf

And i think YOU are guilty of not considering the potentially devastating effects on certain people's lives if we change the law and if you want the law changed then i think you should start there. I don't like putting it like that, "i think you are" - it's confrontational and doesn't lend itself to a decent discussion, but hopefully you'll acknowledge what i'm saying this time if i use your own words.

When did i give you the impression that i am frightened? You've failed to address any of the questions i've asked you, nor do you discuss why my hopefully logical approach to instigating changes to the law is not adequate to you such that you have to label me as frightened. Are you frightened of actually reading my posts?

Understand this - i won't discuss when a life is a life until you answer why i must discuss that first (and only, it seems); if you want to start there then that is fine, but you need to justify it to me if you want me to do it as well. I start where i start because it makes most sense to me. The onus is on you to convince me otherwise.

I didn't suggest any "pro-life arguments", so i have to ask if you're reading my posts. It sounds to me like you are cherry picking the matter in order to push a point, regardless of whether i fit the required mould or not. I'm trying to discuss things with you but you're just accusing me of being frightened or being as foolish as everyone else because i don't first and only consider "when a life is a life". Why would you do that when you're trying to change someone's opinion? I've already said that this very method is gonna get pro-lifers nowhere but perhaps you didn't read that either.

Why is your starting point any better than mine? I can't phrase it any other way. Check my previous posts again (or for the first time?) to see the logic behind my approach. I am a sponge when it comes to new and useful information that can improve my understanding; ask yourself if you have anything you'd like for me to absorb before you accuse me of being frightened or foolish again please

Edit: It's very interesting to me that you accuse me of tugging heart strings (which you still haven't backed up) when you use very emotive language to say:

"Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice."

This coupled with your desire to ignore my attempts at discussion really lead me to believe you're just pushing a pro-life agenda here and not being impartial as you seemingly claim to be. I hope this discussion becomes worth having.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.