best plastic surgeon in Williamsville NY
Buffalo NY heating furnace contractor

There's another video somewhere that shows them put a cube of Aerogel in a white hot furnace. He takes it out with a pair of tongs and then picks it up, still glowing bright red. It is such a good insulator and such a bad conductor of heat that it doesn't even feel warm.

It's too bad they don't make more of it so we could all play with it. It is expensive. I can't wait until the patent expires.

Yeah, I'm going with water bubble. Water is extremely energetic when it changes phase rapidly. Think the old "cup of water in a microwave" explosion or throwing water on to burning oil (eg. http://www.videosift.com/video/Kitchen-Oil-Fire-gone-terribly-wrong). Could be easily avoided by inserting the mold in to the furnace for about 10 seconds an end (if that is indeed the cause)

The cooling outer skin of the aluminium would have resisted the expansion of the steam which is why it took a second or so to pop after they had poured the bulk of the ingot, and why it caused such a big spray.

Both guys are, of course, extremely lucky.

As for putting it out, blowing on it??? Yeah, right. The moron trying to bat out a crucible that is up ended (hence there would be molten Al on the bench burning the bench top) and would be in excess of 660 deg cel, the melting point of Al, with a glove is just icing on the idiot cake at this point. /golfclap

>> ^imstellar28:
^When I see a cat eating a mouse, I think the same thing as when I see a human eating at KFC.

That's either coldblooded, or you're a vegetarian. Or you're full of it.

So tell me, if the mouse has liberty how can the cat be tyrannous?
Tyranny against any group is a tyrannical system. We are arguing for the complete absence of tyranny, aka, a system of complete liberty.

Okay, I think we're in agreement about this. If we have a system where liberty for the cat doesn't mean tyranny for the mouse, we're in a good place.

But how do we give liberty to the mouse without imposing tyranny on the cat?

Your answer has to do with innate human mammalian rights; again, so would mine.

Suppose both wanted to live in the same house, and had the homeowner's blessing to do so.

The cat knows that he has to respect the mouse's right to life, so eating the mouse is out. However, he does get to enforce property rights, and let's say the cat's parents were rich, so he claims all the floorspace in the house except for the basement. He thereby orders the mouse off his property, and threatens to use violence in defense of his land.

If the mouse wants to live in the nicer spaces of the house, he has to agree to terms of the cat's choosing, and since the cat thinks the mouse is a lesser being, he's never going to agree to a fair deal. At best, he might grant a couple square feet to the mouse in exchange for 30 years of service...at worst, he'll come up with a contract that allows him to demand the service up-front, and add years of service for transgressions (which are entirely within the purview of the cat to asses). Then he can just trump up unfair reasons to add service (he looked at me funny!), and keep the mouse enslaved forever, probably servicing the house's furnace with dangerous, unpleasant tasks.

See, liberty for everyone! The cat gets access to all the livable space, and the mouse has to live in crawlspaces and the basement, or possibly work in service of the cat. If the mouse steps foot onto the cat's property, he becomes dinner (like KFC).

I suppose the mouse could ask the human for help, but that would probably lead down the path of terrible, terrible socialism. The human might redistribute the wealth by forcing the cat to give a pittance to the mouse...and that would be slavery, unlike the glorious voluntary liberty the mouse had before.

To turn my metaphor into prose, I think the bottom line is that "liberty" includes one's access to the resources of the world, and under your system there's no counterweight of any kind to massive inequality of wealth, which can wind up looking pretty tyrannical.

All I really differ from you on with most things is that I think there should be a floor on how far people can fall to because of their lack of economic utility, and that there are many ways to structure our world that are or should be illegal or proactively regulated since they can lead to harm to society (like the problems OSHA, EPA, SEC, FCC, etc. were created to prevent).

I suppose I should echo your insult back at you; you don't seem to understand that to get liberty for all, people's actions need to be constrained in equal ways, not that they need to be free to constrain each other in whatever ways they can get away with.

"Here you can find the English translations of the lyrics of Kaizers' second album. They were made by the Kaizers staff, so we don't feel responsible for any mistakes :-)"

If I could just find a hole into heaven
To avoid shoveling coal into the great furnace
I've been stitched up a 1000 times
I'm blind and coughing my lounges up
My face looks old and joints are stiff

But things will it'll get better if we do it together
If we just take it day by day
I would just like to hold
My father one last time
But I'm afraid my heart is too weak

I'm eternally tormented
All I have is in a chest
I'm filled with adrenalin
I'm eternally tormented
God let me be eternally tormented

Put yourself in my place
So maybe you'll understand
That they'll never let me
Into your heaven

Six men and six hands hold this coffin tightly
Nobody knows who's next in line
Soon it'll be my turn. The night is over
But no one can tell me what's to be

Why not just hook your furnace up to that and get free gas heating?

I'd hate to see this guy try to install a gas furnace.

What the fuck people? This is the Internet! You're not allowed to have better-halves, spouses, partners, occasional circle jerks, rolling blackouts, tree hugging marathons, gestational periods lasting longer than seven years, green furnaces covered in spruce tree sap, Oingo Boingo ticket stubs from 1984, barbecue-flavored popsicles, blankfist's herpes, sulfur dioxide crystals, porcupine shavings, weapons of mass construction, sanitary napkins shaped like Paul Anka's flaccid penis, mummified chickens, ancient Aztec secrets of pubic hair grooming styles, Bono, testicular fortitude, or lovers!

All your relationship are belong to me!

The following is from a Newsweek article read by Sen. Byrd (D, WV) during a congressional hearing on September 20, 2002:

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by Newsweek. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.

Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions...

The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons...

The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand.

After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.

The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces.

The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.

Saddam was feeling cocky. With the support of the West, he had defeated the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. America favored him as a regional pillar; European and American corporations were vying for contracts with Iraq. He was visited by congressional delegations led by Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who were eager to promote American farm and business interests. But Saddam's megalomania was on the rise, and he overplayed his hand. In 1990, a U.S. Customs sting operation snared several Iraqi agents who were trying to buy electronic equipment used to make triggers for nuclear bombs. Not long after, Saddam gained the world's attention by threatening "to burn Israel to the ground." At the Pentagon, analysts began to warn that Saddam was a growing menace, especially after he tried to buy some American-made high-tech furnaces useful for making nuclear-bomb parts. Yet other officials in Congress and in the Bush administration continued to see him as a useful, if distasteful, regional strongman. The State Department was equivocating with Saddam right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

Mr. President, I referred to this Newsweek article yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Specifically, during the hearing, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sewn?"

The Secretary quickly and flatly denied any knowledge but said he would review Pentagon records.

I suggest that the administration speed up that review. My concerns and the concerns of others have grown.

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.

The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request.

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.

We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story.

Here's the choggie PSA
send donations to his paypall account, and help us stop the madness....
(*cue grave-sounding muzak)
"Every minute, of everyday....for hundreds of thousands of years, the planet has made it clear; humans are part of the solution to a critical problem: Organic Compost. In unquenchable furnaces like Etna, Stromboli, and Yasur, along with allll her numerous and hidden, underwater fissures, pumping out what it takes to balance the odds in her favor, she remains dedicated....and with overdue kegs of life-stealing sulfuric acid like Yellowstone, Fuji, Etna, ready to pop, along with Mr. Shinyhot(the yellow round thing), she insures that long after this current iteration of human planetary activity, that there will be a layer of shit like plastic and tin cans, for the next monkeys to enjoy.
Global Climate Change. Aren't ya glad you can say you were there when self-absorbed putties had reason to suspect they made more than a scratch, in the planet's surface???
Give, to the United Negro College Fund, a mind is a terr....oh wait, wrong outro-

fuck Guantanamo-
another symptom of a much more dire problem, not limited to anything having to do with the Military, per-se....It's like this ya bleeding-hearts:
To be focus upon, and passionate about, some internment facility involved in nefarious goings-on, and not being able to recognize but a toenail of the hydra, because you are too robotic to be concerned about the heads(and I ain't talking about the bobble-heads that call themselves Presidents, Prime Ministers, dictators or Mullahs, either), is a reflection of their stranglehold on your sensibilities as they relate to $$$, and what drives this buggy...You Do!
*adjusts fur pajamas and throws plastic bottle in furnace


Bandaids on sucking chest wounds....Guantanamo is all in your minds, putties

Hate crimes laws are there to be infinitely improved upon to eventually include all forms of action or speech deemed improper by the state-

Judgements regarding the ten Commandments disallowed in public places being allowed to establish precedent, will further the agenda of those who would welcome authoritarian control, so it actually benefits the fucking atheist rant and ravers, to support it-

Windbag Christians are only effectual to the degree that they give corporate and elitist controlled media outlets fuel for their furnace of disinformation and consolidation of power.

Oh and, atheists?? The fucking Ten Commandments???...a basic framework for monkeys with no better since than to wipe their ass with their food hand, or place the same hand in a situation that destroys the entire body....basic tenants of most faiths and disciplines that built societies....what problem do atheists have with the 10 commandments???

I'll tell ya-they haven't figured it out yet, because they are blinded by the "GOD" label.....it is a reflex, a reaction developed and indulged in by un-actualized mind-

(no doubt there are some of you folks, who simply write this rant off, as coming from some fundy.....Fuck all, dualism is y'alls disease, not mine....))

Does the sun on the left, look angrier than the one on the right?? 1996-2000 cycle....some pics of 0-6 and then 6-12 would be cool....Mr. sun can wreak all kinna havoc...our favorite furnace

Tyger (1794) by William Blake

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

I'm not sure I get your point, spoco2, but I can certainly say you seem passionate about it. Which is good. You deserve a comment upvote for that. I'm not an elitist by any stretch, so I apologize if my rant sounded that way. I am actually a filmmaker, to be honest, and a lot of my friends have been affected by the strike here in LA, so I do have a pretty keen perspective of what's going on outside of the occasional YouTube fanfare which highlights the writer's perspectives only. I've also worked as a programmer, so if that puts me in a "highly skilled industry", then I'm afraid I cannot safely say I've ever (dare even wanted to) look upon the [ahem] rabble below and think them to be thankful for what they have.

I never said Hollywood is the only place with unions. I was trying to point out their sense of entitlement, which maybe I failed at. Sorry. Unions typically are formed to protect workers from egregious work conditions such as long hours and low pay, et cetera. But what separates Hollywood unions from these other unions is this: name another union except those in Hollwyood where the members can stand to make several million a year. Who needs protecting now? And, before you start in on me saying "not everybody makes that much in Hollywood" yaddi yaddi yadda, let me stop you there and point out that my original point was that Hollywood isn't a place where people come because it's the last chance they have at making a career for themselves. No. they come here because they want to be the next Terry Rossio or Steven Speilberg or whoever. No one moves to Lorain, Ohio to be the next Adam Smith who works the blast furnace all day. Make sense?

I believe in people negotiating their own contracts in business. Period. If the market is over saturated with workers, then the workers shouldn't be trying to hold the business owner's feet to the fire in order to take a better cut. If they want a better cut and they cannot negotiate it due to the over abundance of competition, then they have to do what everyone else does and find capital to open their own business, et cetera. [sigh] It's just basic business.