I used to live on the Big Island, near Kilauea..We would go down to the ocean and check out the lava spilling into the sea. It was really beautiful, but you had to keep your distance because the fumes of the lava hitting sea water are toxic.

Man, imagine the exhaust fumes. Ugh.

so impressive!

I also liked his makeshift fume-hood. That's gotta be way easier for collecting dust and not having to wear a mask.

Is all the white material just foam core? I didn't know it could be bent by simply heating it a bit. Or is it something else?

a 1kw diode.......I work in telecoms around 300mW is the most ive seen, and thats extremly dangerous for your eyes.

This thing?

Uhh....nope....nope nope nope nope nope.

As to the fumes, it looks as though the front of this thing has a vacuum nozzle, you can see the dust particulate being sucked into it as he ablates the paint in some parts of the vid.

I think it's because the people are know fully realizing that it really doesn't matter anymore. I think the corps are laughing to tears that they have Cenk et al still fuming and waxing over republicans vs democrats like that's where the front line is.

Over here, the union of railroad engineers is currently showcasing what a union was supposed to be doing, and almost the entire establishment is fuming. You just got to love how a proper strike reveals so many of them for what they are: corporatists who couldn't give a shit about workers.

"How can such a small group of people exploit their positions to grind an entire country to a halt? How can they hold us hostage like this?"

Ironically, it's the same people who (partially-)privatised our railroad in the first place. Railroad engineers used to be civil servants, no risks of strikes there.

The press is demonising them, brass from both government parties is demonising them, laws are proposed to practically strip them of their right to go on strike...

All major unions have been in bed with corporations for so long now that people barely remember what it looks like when a union fights for its members. They used to fear union leaders like Otto Brenner (Otto the Great, Iron Otto), now they're playing golf with his successors.

700c is just over 1200f. How are they so close without any visible heat dispersion, fumes or other signs of such a temperature?
Either way, learned something new today!

I don't think his definition of "fix" is the same as mine. I guess it depends on whether you have enough brainpower to operate the anti-vapor valve or not. Personally, I don't care to have the car or garage smelling like gasoline, so I prefer to avoid the fumes.

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

Saw a few FOX talking heads say this year wasnt as "funny" . Now that I've got a chance to see it I can tell wny, Obama body slammed FOX (and friends) I'm, sure they were all fuming by the end. X)

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

HARrr!

and when that door locks, yo-then gets hotter than the highest setting on the dial......scary shit!
Beats the old way with that toxic can of acid, all those fumes and rubber gloves

Being outside? Being athletic? As someone who's job involves being inside and sedentary, I can see the appeal of that.

Being athletic outside on a roadside breathing traffic fumes? Not so much.

But hey, if that's what he likes doing... good for him.

This is perfect for jobs where the item to be cleaned has many crevices and corners. The only downside is that you'd need an air supply or you'd be breathing cancer fumes.

I wonder how much though. If you point a laser at the moon then the beam will cover much of its surface. Wouldn't make much of an arson target anyway, although an aspiring tag artist with a powerful, precise enough laser (probably an array of lasers high up in the mountains tbh) with enough time could make a mark.

Anyway, I think your right. The laser wouldn't spread much but I figure you wouldn't have to go that far before the laser beam isnt concentrated enough to produce a flame. Still, point it somewhere with flammable fumes in the air, say a gas station and focus it on something matt, black with a low flash point and you could make it a very bad day for somebody.