Your video, Cyanide & Happiness - Dairy Aisle, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'd be more worried about the guys who kill 1,600 people and aren't emotionally traumatized... The fact he's ridiculed by his former pilot mates is disturbing, that they can so distance themselves from killing is scary... of course we have a nation full of people who claim to be pro-life on one hand, yet fully support the preemptive killing of people who haven't done anything to us yet, and indeed may have never participated in any direct or indirect attacks on US soil, let alone against US citizens abroad. It's one thing to target and kill people who were involved in 9/11 or other attacks against US facilities, but preemptively killing people we suspect may become involved is creating a far bigger problem than it solves. This is why we need people like Bernie Sanders rather than any of the other candidates on either side of the aisle, all of whom (besides perhaps Rand Paul, who's fairly heartless towards America's working poor as the rest of his party) will continue the Bush doctrine of shoot and kill first, ask questions later, and never have any regret...

I want a Cars guitar! *promote the 'party in the toy aisle' ... right on

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

They forgot these:

- Cabin service so frosty it makes a Moscow winter look like fucking Maui. (See: Icelandair)

- Fist-swinging free-for-all trying to grab aisle seats near the front of the plane (See: Southwest).

- The prepaid-for seat shuffle where the seat you reserved three months ago gets taken from you and you're reassigned somewhere near the head at the back of the plane. (See: Alaska Airlines)

- "Aww, Sweetie, did you want a sandwich on this 7-hour trans-Atlantic flight? THAT'LL BE 30 FUCKING EUROS PLEASE. Oh, you want to pay in dollars? Ok, that'll be 45 bucks at the current exchange rate plus conversion and transaction fees. Here, enjoy this three-day-old reindeer meat sammich that's dryer than the twats of the frigid cabin crew who served it to you." (See: Icelandair (again))

- Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologize for the 6g maneuver our former Air Force pilot is about to pull in order to avoid having to do a go-around because we were too busy discussing the new stewardess' tits to watch the glide path. Please keep the screaming in terror to a minimum as he startles easily . . ." (See: Delta)

- "Ladies and Gentlemen, we've now arrived in Scranton . . . oh, fuck, this isn't Pittsburgh!" (See: Delta (multiple times))

Yeah -- I just LOVE flying.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

I've never seen a dirty dishrag walk down the aisle. Bucket list?

Kind of. It's hard to know. You are assuming rationality on the part of the business people.

My evidence? The Bechtel Test for the movies. Despite women being 1/2 the population, the moviemakers ignored that audience for decades as they chased what seemed like a better bet -- males from the age of 18-35, or whatever the range of ages is.

Despite the evidence of quality movies about women doing well at the box office, the "rational" business deciders kept saying - oh, that movie that just did well is the exception.

As the exceptions mounted up, FINALLY they are beginning to pay attention. Even then, it was pushed by book sales, you know? Hunger Games. Twilight.

Surely you wouldn't argue that sexism has been absent from the movie theaters all these years?

It may seem like a stretch to make this analogy, but I don't think it is. The blindness of those in charge is LEGION.

Racism can be subtle. The toymakers don't have to saying -- I don't want to make no n****r baby dolls for them to be twisted by the subtle racist stance that little black kids don't read.

I agree with you. It isn't evil.

It is "just" subtle racism that affects little girls standing in a toy aisle.

not exactly a secret.
elites by the very definition feel themselves superior to the befuddled herd (actual term used) and therefore feel compelled to "guide" them and "control" them.
this attitude crosses partisan lines.
so on one side you have educated,indoctrinated elites who disdain the masses but use the language of empathy and compassion to manipulate and on the other side of the aisle you have a perverted aynrand/jesus monster to manipulate the masses.

either way....you are being manipulated.

and there aint NO way the republicans are getting rid of obamacare.only the largest bailout gimme to big pharma and the health insurance industry.that would be political suicide.the entire policy was written by the heritage foundation for fucks sake! not exactly a bastion of liberal ideologies.

just as no republican will repeal roe vs wade.
they will use abortion like a battering ram to get their religious base into a frothy frenzy of hate and self-righteousness,but no way would they EVER let go of that boom stick.

this video is stupid and is only being used to create a platform so a certain someone can jump on his soapbox and preach his religion.

fuck that shit.go on a street corner and peddle your wares.this video has zero relevance.

downvote*

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/fccs-wheeler-net-neutrality-106465.html?hp=l4 Looks like politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are wary about wading into the tech waters after SOPA. This Wheeler guy may be left holding the bag.

Last night I was at the grocery store and thought to glance at the cracker aisle; Honey Maid graham crackers were almost gone (and the rest of the shelf was fully stocked), so I guess this is working out for them.

Ah, I was expecting a much more comical video of "Wile E. Coyote" style brides signing as she went down.

Or a deaf woman signing as she walked down the aisle.

Turns out, she's just Singing.

Other than obviously places like Fox News, isn't it actually hard to get news that conforms to your viewpoints. I've never been to Yahoo news so I don't know if they lean one way or the other, but I suspect that if you filtered your news to certain topics, you'd still get opposing viewpoints.

For example despite what people say about CNN, there are plenty of articles the are pro both sides of the aisle, but if you read the comments, they are convinced that CNN is either left propaganda or right propaganda depending on which commentator you ask.

don't you pretty much have to pick a single site to get ALL of your news from if you want to filter out any opposing viewpoints? but at that level, you have to be aware you're actively filtering out news you don't agree with.

so I get the point he's trying to make, but I think realistically, unless you are consciously going to a website that aligns with your political viewpoints, I think it's pretty hard to not at least be exposed to an opposing viewpoint.

I can see his point though. Founding fathers were far from perfect..and he's right, they are idolized. If we were to meet the founders right now, I'm sure they'd say some fucked up shit even the most conservative would now think of as barbaric. I think at the very least, they definitely favored landowners over non. They certainly didn't think women should vote. so they certainly weren't strangers to the idea that some people had more rights than others.

We make the same argument about weapons, that the founding fathers never could have foreseen how guns have advanced and proliferated in present day so we routinely argue that the 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. The left focuses on "well regulated" and the right focus on "shall not be infringed" No matter what side of the aisle you're on...it needs to be revised if only for clarity.

By that same token, I don't think the founders could have foreseen how powerful corporations have become or income inequality problem. Gov't used to have the power to revoke a company charter pretty much on whim...that ability is long gone

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.