>> ^MaxWilder:

Aren't they supposed to flex a little bit like that? It's when they get to oscillating that they get out of control and fall apart.


Yeah, they are. You definitely don't want resonance.

Aren't they supposed to flex a little bit like that? It's when they get to oscillating that they get out of control and fall apart.

Other people's kneecap.

*flexes epeen*



But seriously, elbows (always), hands (often), toes (often), neck (sometimes), shoulders (sometimes), back (rarely).

Isn't that @Issykitty?>> ^Crosswords:

Of course he's standing up, how else a kitty gonna flex his guns?

Of course he's standing up, how else a kitty gonna flex his guns?

Thank you! *flexes*
Yours is gorgeous, btw!

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
wow that's powerful : Your avatar

Video: cool
Explanation: weak
Tennis analogy: false

Better explanation: Initially, gravity is pulling the whole thing downward while the hand pulls the top upward and the rest of the slinky pulls itself upward and downward creating a balance. Then the old dude lets go of the top. The force pulling up on the bottom still exists, but it is now balanced by accelerating the top downwards faster than just gravity (notice how the slinky slows down as it collapses and loses force. As long as the coils are still taut, the upward force pulling the bottom of the spring up is the same. The top is now falling (being pulled down, actually) instead of pulling the old dude's hand, but the force in the spring is the same.

My guess is that a solid object dropped from the height of the middle of the slinky would hit the ground at the same time as the slinky did. But is that the middle point of a slinky stretched like this one (the top is stretched more than the bottom), or the same middle as when it's all neutral.

Tennis: With all the flex in a tennis racquet's webbing, the the player may feel the ball while it's still on the racquet, before the webbing shoots the ball back out again, but certainly long before it gets to the net.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ7prb43Lk (watch the vibrations in the racquet)

What's interesting about this is if this ever got any traction you would see the Military Industrial Complex flex it's muscle bigtime. I would totally love for this to happen just because you'd see an interesting fight in the upper echelons of this countries leadership and it would be really enlightening.

Think about it when Israel had China come to repair some planes or whatever piece of military equipment. America was furious and demanded they apologize which they did because they're completely reliant on us for their survival in the way they choose to survive. Everyone talks about how the Israel lobby in this country runs things but that case was enlightening because the Israel lobby completely shut up about it. They wouldn't lobby the government or try to deal at all, they knew what was going on and they should just shut up and take their lumps or they're gonna get bit...hard.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
The fact of the matter is that I am just really tired of the trolling on this site. I think we need to change. As high ranking members of the site, we need to exercise our privileges a little more frequently to keep people in check.

I think channel assignments is an odd place to take a stand, but I don't have a problem with it. I would suggest that it's probably better practice to give a warning first. By warning I mean do the whole nochannel thing and, if it's added to the invalid channel again, then hobble.

I'm all for the big dogs flexing some muscle around here but, as @blankfist alluded to, if you intend to do it fairly, you've got your work cut out for you. There are or have been a number of high-ranking members who abuse the shit out of the lies invocation in particular.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'flex, gym, calf exercise, everything, is terrible' to 'flex, gym, calf exercise, weightlifting, bodybuilding' - edited by xxovercastxx

...And don't forget Chicago!
*flexes shoulders*

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

As dumb as the little law is, that's all this video is about. Some people breaking a dumb little law and being arrested for it.

Now if one of the cops had said, "Hey, you know what? This is AMERICA.. F the court's decission.. dance all you want!" that would have been awesome.. but in the end, this is not indicative of massive opression or anything. There is some dumb logic to this law (the keep it a place of tranquility.. as it reads in the court order), and the cops in this video didn't go around tazing everyone or being overtly rude or belligerent.

Infact the guy who pretended like he didn't know he was breaking any law annoys me. If you're going to break the law to make a statement, don't play ignorant when it's obvious you're perfectly aware of what you're doing. Weakens your stance, imo.

It's good to keep one's eyes open for stuff like this on a more broad scale, but as it stands this is a skirmish over one idea of what should be allowed in a specific public area vs another's.. and I can see both sides. I totally side with the dance freedom though myself.

Also this is a city-state, so I would bet federal judges like to flex their muscle here and there amongst DC.

hey guys, just an empowered female here. i was wondering, has anybody been to the GUN SHOW? *AGGRESSIVE FEMALE BICEP FLEX*

listen, dickcock, i ain't your baby, and i ain't your girly, and i ain't your sweet-tits, and i ain't your butter-cunt, and i ain't your muff-burger. i'm all woman, and i don't need a MAN to show me how to BE A LUMBERJACK! *AGGRESSIVE FEMALE WOOD CHOP*

Stirring the pot for no reason. If you don't like a video, downvote it, or avoid it. People have difference of opinion, this is not a little pond, you have to deal with it.

The reason the sift is a good place to be, is because we are so different people. If you don't like it and want to change it to only include your version of reality, then this is not the place for you. I don't think any of the internet really is, when you think about it.

Videosift has a fine filtering mechanism - or well, IS a filtering mechanism, to sift out the crap from the internet. Sometimes things get through that you may not like. Plenty of stuff on here annoys the crap out of me, but I just go around it or even downvote it.

A finishing note is, everything does not revolve around you. I certainly didn't promote that one to attack you or any of the women of the sift - I did it because I like boobs in motion and the video is fun if stupid, and to piss off all the white knights templar who have all the right opinions on the sift.

The cunt punching video is not sexist. The topless chair jousting (http://videosift.com/video/Topless-Chair-Jousting-New-Olympic-Sport-for-2012) video is not sexist. They are no more sexist than all the Old Spice commercials with Isiah Mustafa flexing his pecks to sell deoderant.