Are all the void spaces in the cardboard corrugations filled with epoxy? That definitely wouldn't surprise me, but it is a bit disappointing if they call it a "cardboard guitar" when by weight OR volume it is mostly epoxy... Still pretty cool though.

I'd imagine that it doesn't have much in the way of sustain, even if it is solid epoxy around the cardboard.

It is weird that they just skipped over the part where they soaked the whole thing in epoxy to give it the strength it needed to work.

It is also weird to here packaging folk referring to that material as "cardboard" rather than "corrugated" or "corrugated fiberboard". In industry circles, "cardboard" is solid, not a multi-layered material with corrugations.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Cool! Makes me wonder if people will ever be able to land in wing suits without a large pile of cardboard boxes. ;-)

Do you think Maru's owner gets enough views to make a living from the ad revenue on these vids? I'd imagine they must be close, if anyone can do it.

Back when I was a kid starting to think about what to do, profession-wise, it was all about "new media". No-one quite seemed to know what that actually meant, but I'm pretty sure even the most visionary vocational guidance councelor never suggested to anyone that a career of filming a cat getting into cardboard containers might be worth considering. And yet...

Imagine going back into art and media schools in the 90's to show the teachers what their new field is going to turn into!

All it takes is a lobotomy.

Note for future fire fighters:
Don't move the fire to a heap of cardboard prior to trying to extinguish it.

> but they go until exhaustion and death in this circle

So a scientist with a piece of cardboard could save 10,000 lives here

Exactly what I was thinking on both counts.

Also, baby in a cardboard box? What gives?

Men walkin' 'long the railroad tracks
Goin' someplace there's no goin' back
Highway patrol choppers comin' up over the ridge

Hot soup on a campfire under the bridge
Shelter line stretchin' 'round the corner
Welcome to the new world order
Families sleepin' in their cars in the Southwest
No home no job no peace no rest

The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad

He pulls a prayer book out of his sleeping bag
Preacher lights up a butt and takes a drag
Waitin' for when the last shall be first and the first shall be last
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass
Got a one-way ticket to the promised land
You got a hole in your belly and gun in your hand
Sleeping on a pillow of solid rock
Bathin' in the city aqueduct

The highway is alive tonight
Where it's headed everybody knows
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Waitin' on the ghost of Tom Joad

Now Tom said "Mom, wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there's a fight 'gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me."

Well the highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
With the ghost of old Tom Joad

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 love the editing and camera angles here. Thanks!
And of course: cardboard (as in, cardboard wars)

Quite true, but someone woke up inspired to come up with the concept... a cool ad for some decidedly iffy products.

Hmm... a little research later and I might have to take some of that back:

http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/11/worlds-most-incredible-cereal-pouring-machine/

The Dad and daughter are Mark and Jane Frauenfelder, and Mark is the founding editor-in-chief of MAKE magazine. He says, of the ad, that:

My daughter Jane and I had fun in this video for General Mills and Megabloks about the joy of using cardboard and spare parts to create a Rube Goldberg contraption, as part of their Rev Up the Breakfast Table campaign.

Since we are sharing stories of our use of illegal drug paraphernalia, here's one of mine. When I was in high school ( all these stories should start with a variation of this opening), my friends and I took a cardboard shipping tube about 4 inches in diameter and 4 or 5 feet long and made a bong out of it. It took three good pulls to get the smoke up to our lungs . All that lung work followed by a great big bong hit was VERY effective. We named it the BONGZOOKA. It was a big hit (pun intended). We kept that thing around our whole junior year. I too grew up and quit smoking the weed, ...but.. I miss the 70s and the bongzooka.

Tonight I'm picking up new cardboard boxes for my storage stuff.
Everything is already in boxes, but I was thinking how much it bothered me how, the boxes are of varying sizes and shapes. So much easier to have every single box exactly the same. You know, so they stack better....

Those boards aren't actually printed on.

Camera took video of the guy with chroma key cardboard (with location markers). At the end took a photo without said guy, mapped it to the boards. Edited to the surfaces in reverse.

Not bad.