Nope, just swamped. Overwhelmed with too much work and too little time.

Specific points aside, we're in agreement that our differing opinions and opposing crystal balls disagree.

Plus, the point of good ice cream is to not have large ice crystals.

Fun to watch and probably tasty...but not ice cream.

You can read the poem here
http://allyourprettywords.tumblr.com/post/117812045573/on-evaluating-black-privilege-crystal-valentine

I agree that there can be an element of that, not even an element but a crystal clear revelation of "this is how I need to change". That is one way the psychedelics move, one of the ways that they are more powerful than anything else a human can experience. They are enlightening as well as humbling.

Abrams IS a hack. he never even liked star trek but repeated all the old images with added lens flares and fake looking shiny CGI bullshit.
Expect the same.
There is no love or inspiration here, just the product of a billion dollar business deal between fat cynical capitalists and later their mercenary artisitically bankrupt stooge for hire.
Doing anything interesting is the only way to get fired for him (see Antman).
Also, that doesn't look like han solo, anymore than the crystal skull oldie looked like indiana jones.

My original thought was maybe a frozen methane hydrate, it didn't behave like a pure liquid.

From http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
-Methane hydrates belong to a group of substances called clathrates – substances in which one molecule type forms a crystal-like cage structure and encloses another type of molecule. If the cage-forming molecule is water, it is called a hydrate. If the molecule trapped in the water cage is a gas, it is a gas hydrate, in this case methane hydrate.
Methane hydrates can only form under very specific physical, chemical and geological conditions. High water pressures and low temperatures provide the best conditions for methane hydrate formation.

@billpayer - I know I'm late to the party and it's been reiterated above repeatedly, but I just wanted to clarify that:

A) Yes, the page #2 link is not showing up in the pagination for some reason and that will be addressed/corrected asap.

B) Your video is not being suppressed, just incidentally appears on that second page to which you weren't clicking through.

C) Everyone who is able to down-vote a video is permitted to do so if they have watched the video and dislike its content, and they, like you, are not required to explain the reason for their down-vote.

I just want to be crystal clear that there's no conspiracy against you or your video, nor is anyone breaking the rules with an honest down-vote. Sorry for the confusion.

Yeah watching it long enough, especially due to the lingering affect of the "smoke" left behind, you can tell that little gem definitely has some very concrete numbers. Since it looks like a slowly revolving sphere of undulating waves (with the smoke). All thanks to the frequency of the radiation and what it emits.

If you look at the beginning you'll notice that the Uranium is clear and has a blue crystal look to it (though it is a metal). As the video slowly moves forward, it gets darker and darker, eventually it turns into Uranium Oxide. Or it looks like that to me, if so then they probably used water to create the reaction.

I always thought he sounded like one of Billy Crystal's voices.

Stevia is too new to make any real determinations on. Currently, there is a lot of uncertainty. Just because something comes from a plant doesn't make it safer. Almonds used to be loaded with cyanide before we eliminated the trees that had those kinds of almonds. There have been recent studies questioning the safety of stevia, and this will likely be dealt with over the next decade. Unfortunately, certain countries have gotten around the necessary procedures for sufficient scientific inquiry because they are marketing it not as a food additive or sweetener but as a dietary supplement, which makes it easier to avoid such scrutiny. Unlike xylitol, which is perfectly fine for human consumption and has been shown to inhibit growth of oral bacteria that leads to caries and plaque, stevia is simply an unknown at this point.

However, stevia has also been around for a while. It has been a product since the 90s and has been banned and un-banned in numerous countries. European reports have shown that it is safe, but it is also still banned in many countries there.

For those of you think that it is "natural" and thus safer, I urge you to look up the naturalistic fallacy on wikipedia before going any further here. It has also been used as a sweetener by certain tribal peoples for centuries, so that means absolutely nothing as far as science goes, but it will still sway many people over, just like traditional herbal Chinese medicines like tiger penis powder and rhinoceros horn powder.

However, it is not a "natural" substance whatsoever, even though that word means nothing in nutrition anyways. Basically they take a small amount of Rebaudioside A from the stevia plant and use a bunch of alcohols and other chemicals to extract out the active sweetening ingredient and then crystallize it. This is then renamed steviol. It is significantly less sweet than most of the other sweeteners, except maybe saccarin, at only about 150x the sweetness of sugar.

Basically, Stevia is probably not bad for you, although the verdict is definitely not in on this one. It is no more "natural" than any of the other sweeteners. You need more of it to reach the same level of sweetness as your other sweeteners so dosage could be an issue. But you have to understand that each of the companies that makes these sweeteners has to find a way to sell their product. So, what do they do? They claim that their sweetener is "natural" and "safe" which implies that all of the other sweeteners that came before it aren't, and as evidence by my previous tirades, this is simply not the case. But they profit from our unwillingness to look at the data for ourselves and play on our natural tendencies to trust them.

In short, we are not certain about stevia yet, but we are certain that sugar is bad and aspartame is fine. However, you probably shouldn't eat any processed food, but we already know that in our bones. We all know that cooking up a delicious meal from simple ingredients is the best way to eat healthy but we don't do it because we are lazy. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. We can only dream of a future similar to "The Invention of Lying" where marketers aren't allowed to lie to us and can simply say that their food is bad for you but you drink it because it tastes good and because you have been for years. A world where they can't market to our children so we don't all grow up addicted to halloween candy or cereals that are more sugar than grains. The best way to do this is to cut your cable from the television and live on the internet with AdBlock installed. Then those fuckers can't get at you as easily.

Oh man. you're putting me on the spot with that question. I traded 1/2 ownership of a 128mac for my brother's old apple 2 and a shoe box of floppy's. I didn't go through 1/2 of them before I got kicked out of the house and he took it all back. I remember a few text games...hitchhikers guide among them. I think also defender, Montezuma's revenge sounds familiar, Wolfenstien, Beyond Wolfenstien, Cannonball Blitz, Centipede, choplifter, crystal castles, frogger, galaxian, joust, kung fu master, leisure suit larry in the land of the lounge lizards, lode runner, missile defense, moon patrol, qix, tapper, ultima (maybe ultima 2), and zork. That's all I recognize from the list.

The simulated crystal elaborates
underneath an unconscious.
A passing attendant spends the presence.

http://watchout4snakes.com/wo4snakes/Random/RandomParagraph

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crystals, david bowie, jim henson' to 'crystals, david bowie, jim henson, michael moschen' - edited by oohahh

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.