Tags for this video have been changed from 'cheese, skin, ferment, milk, heat' to 'cheese, skin, ferment, milk, heat, david mitchell, robert webb' - edited by xxovercastxx

Very cool. Surely @blankfist will be fermenting his cheesecrusted nutsack over this gem?

*promote

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.

Protip: open it in a bucket filled with water. Keeps it from going everywhere.

It is basically very fermented fish that is very salty and smells disgusting as hell. Eating it pure is way too salty (not that I would know, since I refuse eating stuff when I almost vomit from the smell) and you are supposed to drink schnapps with it. Neither of my dogs eat it and they eat almost everything; that's how salty it is.

Smells of rotten fish for blocks. People love the taste though. lots of umami from fermented fish.

If you don't give the tears enough time to ferment, your white whine will taste bitter and immature.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Enzoblue:
Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

I hear ya.
I also don't know how to relate to that.
Not even a sip of wine? Did he always feel superior? Or, just his own fear?


That is such a weird stance to take. What is it about drugs and alcohol that is so integral to your experience that you don't know how to relate to a person that's never tried it? I drink, but there's nothing magical about alcohol. I'd be the exact same person if I'd never had any.

Do you feel the same way about other people that have never tried other experiences? Have never eaten beetles or fermented fish or rotten soybeans or killed a man or surfed on the north shore or climbed a mountain?

You've never climbed a Russian bridge and stood on the rails? Did you always feel superior?

More info on making fermented shark. It's a lot like making cheese, in a way. Nasty, nasty cheese.

Thanks for the promote and the facts!
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
So, a couple of things. First, the domesticated chicken is almost completely flavorless when eaten immediately after slaughter and draining. The flavor we omnivores call "chicken" actually derives from the byproduct of decomposition bacteria that are ever-present in chicken flesh and only begin to grow into large enough numbers for us to taste well after the flesh is dead. This flavor phenomenon is true of many of the meats humans eat.

Second, the Eskimo-Aleut (and I mean the language group here) diet has been rigorously studied and determined to be among the most robust and healthful diets ever established by humans. I'm certainly not saying that eating fermented birds is either tasty or good for you, but the people who thought this up are way better at eating than nearly all of you are.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40315808
http://www.livestrong.com/article/491284-traditional-inuit-aleut-diet/
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/3_suppl/C79.extract
http://www.straightdope.co
m/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

P.S.--You wanna call bogus on these facts--which a few have done since the studies in the late '90s--please bring hard evidence.

*promote

So, a couple of things. First, the domesticated chicken is almost completely flavorless when eaten immediately after slaughter and draining. The flavor we omnivores call "chicken" actually derives from the byproduct of decomposition bacteria that are ever-present in chicken flesh and only begin to grow into large enough numbers for us to taste well after the flesh is dead. This flavor phenomenon is true of many of the meats humans eat.

Second, the Eskimo-Aleut (and I mean the language group here) diet has been rigorously studied and determined to be among the most robust and healthful diets ever established by humans. I'm certainly not saying that eating fermented birds is either tasty or good for you, but the people who thought this up are way better at eating than nearly all of you are.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40315808
http://www.livestrong.com/article/491284-traditional-inuit-aleut-diet/
http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/56/3_suppl/C79.extract
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

P.S.--You wanna call bogus on these facts--which a few have done since the studies in the late '90s--please bring hard evidence.

*promote

>> ^gwiz665:

We bring you peace.
That's what they say, but then before you know it they're playing Abba and eating fermented herring pizza.

@visionep I come from a farm family in Kansas, so I'm a bit biased, but I tend to disagree with you on a few things. So upvote for your comment starting the discussion but here's my rebuttal --

1. "Not much" has the potential to be pretty good, considering that sources of ethanol are much more renewable than oil. Plus, a lot of the energy balance reviews of ethanol that I've seen or heard of talk about the input cost to produce the first gallon of fuel, ie. they include construction, fermentation tanks, etc. etc. That is fair, but it is worth noting that over the long term those startup input costs become less and less of a factor because the infrastructure already exists. The cost to refine the first gallon of crude oil into gasoline was higher than the bazillionth, also.

2. Some of the food production competition will remain long-term, and some is temporary. Right now in the US, we mostly use corn (field corn) to produce ethanol. Field corn can be ground into corn flour, but at least where I come from the majority of it went to feed lots to be used as food for beef cows prior to introduction of ethanol plants. Now, the produced corn is split between going to beef production or into ethanol.

Competition between beef vs. ethanol industries raised the price of corn some (both industries want that corn) which makes farmers happy. That in turn raised the price of beef a bit, but it didn't do much to prices for human-consumption food other than that, because field corn isn't used for that very much.

The reason that we use corn for ethanol now is that corn is plentiful; it is the major crop in my neck of the woods with wheat being the second but lagging far behind. Ethanol producers need something that ferments, corn fits the bill and is available. Minor crops like milo work basically just as well as corn, so if some weather event damages a corn field and it can be replanted with milo later in the season that is great for farmers because they now have a buyer that is willing to take milo.

In the future, we could use non-food cellulose crops like switchgrass for ethanol production, and the processing will only be slightly different. Switchgrass could be grown and harvested on land that is unsuitable for corn (corn does best with a lot of water), but there isn't a large supply of it right now because there hasn't been any demand for it historically.

So yes, there will always be some competition between what crop people decide to produce on a given piece of farmland, and that can affect food prices. But I think that over the long term, ethanol production could provide useful fuel that has positive benefits that outweigh impacts from potentially slightly higher food prices. Maybe. But then again, I am a biased source!

Saw a documentary with this guy, he's one of the highest paid employees of the company and is one of the rare people to have the perfect palette according to doctor and scientist on the documentary.

There are just a couple hundred of the tasters certified as perfect palettes in the U.S. that are hired from tasting wine before fermentation and after, to beers before and after, and foods.

They make usually minimum 6 figures a year, but become certified as a perfect palette was pretty insane from all sorta tests done on the tongue to mental tests.

No matter how well intentioned, I think military interventions nowadays that aim to dethrone an authoritarian regime are practically guaranteed to fail.

Modern combat is fought through surgical air strikes with a limited ground force. It minimizes invading state casualties but poor intelligence from limited local manpower inevitably leads to mass civilian casualties. This progressively undermines local support. Fostering a vibrant democracy or training a self sufficient military and police force, hell, let alone rebuilding the infrastructure from the initial invasion cannot be done quickly. As has been seen from Afghanistan especially, this allows insurgencies to organise and further air bombing simply adds to their recruitment numbers.

Removing totalitarianism also reveals long-held grudges and power imbalances such as how removing Saddam's minority Sunni Ba'ath Party fermented a civil war with the oppressed Shi'ite majority. Local revolutions on the other hand, without intervention create a sense of solidarity regardless of past differences. A foreign coup d'état does not.

States that have democracy thrust upon tend to squander them or relapse back into authoritarianism. Often this is from a lack of established and respectable candidates to choose from, haphazard transition to a market economy (e.g Russia) or a lack of consistent ground level demands from the people resulting in simple pandering by politicians to secure votes with no intentions of governance. Democracy is only able to work effectively when individuals with growing affluence over time begin to demand better infrastructure, services and generally representation of their interests.

Not to mention, especially in Africa, many countries were wished into existence by exiting colonial powers with no logical cultural, religious or ethnic links among them. There is simply no genuine sense of national unity. This is arguably what caused the violence in Kenya in 07-08 following the disputed election. Foreign interventions in ex-colonial countries also inevitably leads to the perception of renewed imperialism, not matter how pure actual intentions. This is why intervention in Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe is inconceivable unless it by the African Union, which is far too weak and unwilling. Even now, Mugabe has considerable support by his colonial independence credentials.

Other countries simply have never had a legitimate and effective government in generations. The Taliban did not so much rule Afghanistan as loosely impose Sha'ria law on individual tribes who otherwise had signficant autonomy. Now that representational democracy has been imposed, there is simply no willingness on the part of an individual tribe to work together to improve the livelihood of all, but merely their own people. Politicians and officials are not corrupt because they are immoral but because political survival means following this creed.

Point is, military interventions don't work in removing despotic governments simply because something can and will go wrong. The only place they are appropriate is preventing genocide or aggressor nations. NATO was correct to intervene in Kosovo, the UN was correct to prevent Iraqi aggression into Kuwait (ignoring Iraqi invasion of Iran was not). Intervention should have occurred in Rwanda and equally in Sudan.

The Powell Doctrine more or less sets out what I wrote above concisely. In short, intervention should occur only with mass popular local support, and be undertaken swiftly and effectively with overwhelming force with a clear exit strategy established.

Thanks to Bush though, the US is overstretched militarily and lacks the moral authority to incite other nations into intervening where necessary. More importantly it's lost the deterrence its successful interventions in Kosovo and Kuwait created.

>> ^bcglorf:

Hurray for anything bringing some attention to the situation over there, particularly in correctly referring to it as Burma and not the Myanmar moniker imposed by the military dictatorship.
RedSky said:
For countries that have essentially had institutionalised repression for a generation or more like North Korea and Burma, I honestly think that the best way forward is to encourage trade with some restrictions in the hope that some of it filters through to the people.
I completely agree with your feeling conflicted on how best to help the poor people imprisoned in these countries. Honestly, I think using a foreign military to remove the regime followed by a nation building program on the scale used in post war Germany and Japan is the best way forward. But no nation on Earth has any reason to spend that enormous amount of money and political good will on something that in essence gains them nothing in the end anyways.
I do dearly wish that when Burma was hit so bad by natural disasters a few years ago the world have reacted more appropriately. Instead of allowing the ruling military to refuse and block any aid from going in, the world should have come in by force with as many soldiers and weapons as needed to deliver the volunteered aid to the devastated areas by force, then simply withdrawn after the aid had been delivered and provided. Sure the military would come and take it all for themselves after anyways, but the people there could've seen for a few months that the outside world actually cares about them and would gladly treat them for better than the junta is. Maybe allowing a base of resistance and opposition to gain wider support.

Oh Seric, you say the most romantic things.>> ^Seric:

Sounded like a fermentation barrel bubbling through a disinfectant trap to me.