>> ^choggie:

closet homosexual @ 4:44
repub=democrat=red team=blue team
(draw a diagram chog, they still are blind)


Yeah, that guy is classic.

OMG, what a pack of lies.

That would be decreasing terrestrial biomass Psychologic. (2004 figures though)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle


That diagram also shows the deception behind their misleading low percentage for human contribution to atmospheric CO2.

5.5 from fossil fuels vs 60 from forests, 60 from soils, 92 from the oceans.

Looks tiny if you pretend the 121.3 back into forests and soils and the 92 back into the ocean doesn't count.

The 1.3 difference for terrestrial forests and soils covers the CO2 fertilisation effect.

I still stand by my definition:


If it depicts some form of sexual act, solo, with a partner, or with multiple partners and or animals, including any form of penetration, stimulation, or violation of naughty bits, it's porn. (Soft core is tricky, there is no actual view of "Penetration", and the most you'll ever see is a boob, but it all depends on how the advertisers view breasts, and if they're desensitized to the issue.)

If its something about describing anatomy, like a diagram, or something that is meant for educational purposes, as in the birth of a child, that's educational.

If it's about the female form, tastefully posed to show some larger picture of a form of beauty, that's art.
(Specific example of this is Three women being painted to form a tiger) Most body paint videos fall under this category.

>> ^berticus:
I don't know of one. But.. why? Is that what defines this as pornography to you, the fact that it shows stimulation of women-bits? This is an impasse, I suspect, one that I fall on the opposite side of a large wall from the majority of people here. This video is not pornography by any stretch of the imagination to me. Even the original clip, without the EIT editing, would not have been pornography. Porn to me is about intent as much as it is depiction. I don't see the intent of this clip being arousal for the viewer, it was made as an educational video for women. The fact that it's sexual education still doesn't make it porn, to me.
It's alright though, I'm used to being the odd one out here in how I perceive things.
>> ^Shepppard:
I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.


I don't see how you're taking anything away from this as "Educational". The minute we got tribal music and "O faces" we got to the point of full out sexual stimulation.

Let me put it this way. This video is about.. Women masturbating. If you were to go out and buy a hustler, most of that magazine is going to be of.. women masturbating.

Just because it may not be appealing to some doesn't mean it's not meant as a form of arousal for the viewer, the content is the same. The way I look at porn is basically as follows:

If it depicts some form of sexual act, solo, with a partner, or with multiple partners and or animals, that is porn.

If its something about describing anatomy, like a diagram, or something that is meant for educational purposes, that's not porn.

If it's about the female form, something showing the beauty of someone confident enough to pose without their clothes on, that's art.

This falls under one catagory on that list. This is not meant to be educational, and even if is, it's education about sexual arousal and stimulation. As dag said, it doesn't matter that it's a group of women. If it were a group of 6 guys around in a circle jerking one out, that'd also be porn, and inapropriate for videosift.

>> ^peggedbea:
help, im a man on the sift and unattractive woman are sexualizing themselves in ways im not comfortable with.
if they were hot young girls jumping up and down or doing something worthless and unfunny, that never the less made me think of sex without ACTUALLY thinking about sex, where the sex thought only existed in my imagination. id send it straight to number one.

or if this was a fucking family guy video, id tell people they were pretentious and should let the votes decide what stays and goes.
sometimes i feel like mink. FUCK.
who defines quality?


I challenge you to find me another sifted video that is this graphic, and not in some way educational.

(I.e. Nothing you'd find in a medical textbook. So, things that are just diagrams, or explinations of how things work)

Nothing you will find will be this graphic (Seeing full on genitals, people in the act of pleasuring themselves in full view. etc.) The worst I've been able to find is a video collection of "O Faces" and one from Gwiz about the "Anatomy of the Vagina" which just seemed to be him posting it for the hell of it, because the video he posted that was from a porn site got discarded.

This has nothing to do with the fact that they're all older, it's the fact that what they're doing is sexually explicit, and doesn't belong on the sift.

He doesn't really setup why people want to use feynman diagrams. The reason is quite interesting. It turns out the simplest (i.e. the fewest lines) interactions are the most probable and dominant. There are also specific conservation rules you have to follow when drawing them. The genius of these diagrams is that we draw all the solutions to a given QED problem and solve for the wave functions in an intuitive way. It is a clever trick.

Christ, who is the guy responsible for filling this video with 70% stock footage of stark looking landscapes or spacescapes that have nothing at all to do with the narrative. Can't be bothered to make diagrams that are actually related? I feel like this is a fluff piece that has scarcely advanced my actual understanding of the concepts, because it works at such a hand waving high level.

It's a bit simplistic to say that the conservative physicists like Bohr and Dirac rejected Feynman's diagram because they loved their complex mathematics so much. Fact is that Feynman diagrams are very dumbed down versions of reality, as quantum particles do not move in such simple straight lines as implied by the diagrams. Their power lies in how they are an exquisite intuitive tool for keeping track of how the complex equations should be put together. When you first hear of them there is a danger of mistaking them for being meant as accurate pictures of reality, and I think this was a big part of Bohr and Dirac's misgivings.

Anyhow, when you keep in mind that the diagrams are always to be used in conjuntion with the complex mathematics, they are perhaps the most useful tool ever discovered in physics.

>> ^mas8705:
I don't know what is more disturbing... The idea how most of the comments are about robot asses, or the idea that ant also wants to see it too...
>> ^ant:
>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..cars have asses?

Want me to draw you a diagram?
Use your imagination.

Please show us.

I don't know what is more disturbing... The idea how most of the comments are about robot asses, or the idea that ant also wants to see it too...

>> ^ant:
>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..cars have asses?

Want me to draw you a diagram?
Use your imagination.

Please show us.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..cars have asses?

Want me to draw you a diagram?
Use your imagination.


Please show us.

You need to think less...

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..cars have asses?

Want me to draw you a diagram?
Use your imagination.

..yes. yes i do.
Because while pondering that, more question arose. Like..
What ahem equipment would a transformer use to perform such a rape? Driveshaft? (appropriate i guess)
If cars and transformers share the same anatomy.. what happens to a transformer's ass when they transform?
(Assuming the back bumper is the ass, what occurs if a transformation displaces the bumper to someplace other then were a humanoids ass would be?)
I wonder..

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..cars have asses?

Want me to draw you a diagram?
Use your imagination.


..yes. yes i do.

Because while pondering that, more questions arose. Like..

What *ahem* equipment would a transformer use to perform such a rape? Driveshaft? (appropriate i guess)
If cars and transformers share the same anatomy.. what happens to a transformer's ass when they transform?

(Assuming the back bumper is the ass, what occurs if a transformation displaces the bumper to someplace other then were a humanoids ass would be?)

I wonder..

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..cars have asses?


Want me to draw you a diagram?

Use your imagination.

Ohhhhhhh! Ayiieeya! Please to read instrumentation on termite placement diagram!!