For Pete's sake.
Get a better mic
Use a room without so much echo
Use a decent lamp so your face isn't blooming
Move the camera forward instead of sitting forward like a kid who has to pee

" this ever-more frequent and distressing phenomena"

As I found above, this isn't a poorly understood 'phenomena'. Somebody sprayed the tree with a pesticide known to kill bees while it was in bloom and loaded with bees. No surprise or mystery with the outcome of thousands of dead bees. It's distressing when someone fouls up like this, but nothing about this is "ever more frequent". This is an isolated incident. Its likely that this human screw up will be repeated somewhere else, but the cause and the prevention are 100% understood and we know exactly how to stop it. Don't deliberately and intentionally use chemicals designed to kill bees on trees loaded with bees and they won't die this way again.

I've heard all manner of people talking about the mysterious mass die off of bees that's happening around the world. This incident is absolutely 100% unrelated to that in every imaginable way.

Ah, but there was followup to the story and it looks like the trees were innocent:

But a local conservation society concluded that the tree was inadvertently sprayed with a pesticide that killed the bees.

Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society, said he has confirmed the thousands of dead bees found Monday in a Wilsonville parking lot died from pesticide poisoning.

Black said the Oregon Department of Agriculture talked with a landscaping company that recently sprayed an insecticide called Safari on the European linden trees in the parking lot.

“They made a huge mistake, but unfortunately this is not that uncommon,” said Black. “Evidently they didn’t follow the label instructions. This should not have been applied to the trees while they’re in bloom.”

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

"The Gold-bloom" hahaha!

Its caused by breakdown of biological products mixing in with water rather violently. Usually when a large algal bloom dies, the breakdown of the matter acts like a surfactant (destroyer of surface tensions!!!), which causes the foam.

Not usually all that harmful.

Haha, I actually tried that for a little while because yeah, it bothered me how insincere the whole thing can be and I hate doing that whole dance. Thing is if you unload fully on your partner then it puts them in an awkward postion because they feel they have to reciprocate your full disclosure when perhaps they don't trust you sufficiently. At least thats the way I see it (and its why I stopped being a dick to people who were just trying to be polite )

The worst small talk? 1st year of university. You meet a lot of new people which I was mostly fine with. What bothered me endlessly was the same few questions. Where are you from. What course are you on etc etc. Maybe its selfish of me, but first I got bored of asking them and then I got bored of answering. Eventually I started asking people what their favorite flavour of icecream was (lemon sorbet btw) just to, you know, break routine. I guess you might call it an ice(cream)breaker and tbh, it worked quite well. Oh, and if somebody answers vanilla then you need to keep that person close. They are the best kinds of people (and there aren't very many vanillas). Maybe I don't really have a problem with small talk, I just have a problem with boring small talk

Interesting to note that "How do you do?" is traditionally reciprocated with another "How do you do?". I mean, its seems totally absurd, its almost like the question is rhetorical - it certainly doesn't expect an answer. Its just a polite courtesy and to do anything but show the same courtesy back would be considered rude - how self absorbed of you to actually answer! The conversation might evem bloom into discourse on the state of the weather (the last refuge of the unimaginative .

Oh, and it kind of is stupid though SveNitoR. Don't worry, I don't consider myself stupid or somehow broken in this regard, but I really can't see how anxiety serves any purpose. Obsessing over the tiny details of a conversation only serves to make me look stiff and robotic, like some sort of psychopath trying to remember how to smile with their eyes. I've heard theories that the reason alcohol is so embedded in our society is because on some level we actually sort of need it to overcome this inhibition. Unfortunately I don't drink, although I have found a sort of vicarious empathy - I inherit the same hibition if I am with people who are a bit buzzed, just none of the memory loss (a blessing ang a curse). Anyway, thats quite tangental. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm quite comfortable being an introvert and while anxiety certainly bothers me and stresses me out more than I'd like I don't let it paralyse me.

He bloomed nicely. I like to see this with George Clooney as well =o)

>> ^WaterDweller:

2:50 - Four hour exposure? Seriously? Surely, ten minutes in the darkest of nights would overexpose any image unless you used a really narrow aperture (and possibly even then)?


I wish. Night time photography would be a hell of a lot easier if this were true.

It's not. Four hours on a dark night seems reasonable to me. Depends on the camera settings used, of course, but if you keep the ISO low and use a reasonable aperture for good depth of field four hours sounds reasonable. The main problem with this is sensor bloom from the heat of the batteries and circuit boards in the camera itself.

>> ^oritteropo:

Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
In reply to this comment by coolhund:
When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.
I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.
Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.
I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.
And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.



Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.

And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.

When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.

I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.

Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.

I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.

And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.

Such an awful game and not because it's a shameless and pointless use of an old beloved IP, but because it was as generic and boring as a shooter in this day and age gets. It looks real purdy (except the bloom), but I am SO goddamn sick of these games that continue to follow this awful plan of making it as boring and simple as possible. There's nothing to keep track of, nothing to think about. Just shoot and do whatever the onscreen prompts tell you to do. Fuck off

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).