But the thing about science is that you are supposed to give out information willy-nilly. A central ideal of the scientific method and scientific experimentation is repeatability. You make a hypothesis, design a controlled experiment to test that hypothesis, and publish in an extremely open way the steps and procedure of those experiments so that other people can repeat what you've done, perform the same tests and verify your results for themselves.

So much of global warming science comes from computer climate models. The problem with modeling something as complex as climate with computers is that it is nearly impossible to understand the whole system well enough that you can isolate one experimental variable to vary and compare to a control group. As time goes on, we keep learning about more and more variable inputs to the whole system of climate. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases create a greenhouse effect. The sun has a periodic sunspot cycle and other random (as near as we can figure) fluctuations.

Climate Science is a good thing, because we will gradually learn to understand more and more of those contributing variables. But before anything radical is done in reaction to computer models, those models have to be proven viable. One way that can be done is to feed old, recorded data into the model and see if it can accurately "predict" the past.

For that to be done, the system that the computer models use must be fully disclosed, open, and accepted.

Johannes Kepler came up with some scientific, mathematical equations to describe the physics of how bodies in space interact with gravitational pull. By applying those equations, we've sent men into space and to the moon, maintained orbits of satellites, and done all sorts of fantastically useful things. Until climate science can take data from 2 decades ago and accurately describe what happened 1 decade ago, I think it makes sense to be at least a little skeptical in our reactions to what those models say will happen 10-100 years from now.

>> ^volumptuous:
This video is a lie.
I've done Nitrous hundreds of times (even have a $85 personal dispenser) and it definitely does not work that way.
Also, it effects your voice opposite of what helium does - makes it drop about 1 or 2 octaves. None of their laughs seem to be effected by the gas whatsoever. This is something you have no control over. If you inhale the gas, your voice drops.
Last, inhaling/exhaling the way they are doing would be sure to make them seriously dizzy, probably fall over, and maybe even pass out. But again, noone seems to be that effected by it. So, again, I call lie.


Not necessarily if they're nose breathing at the same time. They're obviously not toking on x-times-exhaled air for 30 seconds, so i assume that is a given. Try getting an inflated balloon and breathing in and out (with your nose blocked) 20-30 times, you'd be surprised how hard it is. I'm 99% certain these guys are substituting fresh air with their noses to go with the balloon gas (whatever it is) which they are trying to get the effects of.

This also effects your first statement - if they are breathing in/out to get themselves 'nitro-genated' (like oxygenated but with nitrous, get it?), getting it into their system as best they can - like divers do - breath in and out deeply many times before taking a large breath to get their blood oxygenated due to it soon being highly de-oxygenated, then their lungs wouldn't be full of gas and hence their voices would, at least from a physics point of view, not be affected. The change in octave of taking in certain gases is caused because of the different properties of the gas passing over your vocal chords. Air passing over our vocal chords sound normal to us, heavier gases sound deeper, lighter gases sound higher. So unless the nitrous affects the inner workings of the body such that the vocal chords are slack/tight, the pitch may be unaffected or mostly so.

As for the laughing, i know nothing. I was skeptical of the first guy's stupid laugh. Seemed extremely fake to me, but the other 2 didn't seem that way.

>> ^unpopp:
The only time we ever had any trouble was when a mate was laughing so hard he smacked his head against the concrete wall he was sitting against. No harm done...I think.

Replacing the mixture of gases that makes up air with another gas (other than oxygen) does do harm. Maybe not in the short term but depriving your brain of oxygen is generally a bad thing.

About time such scanners are introduced. Terrorists trying to board the planes with explosives and ceramic blades, everywhere you look. Just yesterday, a group of 27 terrorists tried to hijack a Cessna by overpowering the pilots with their genital piercings. With this new technology, they wouldn't have gotten onto the airplane.

But how long until they finally invent a method to remove all bodily fluids and gases? It's completely unacceptable that you can still get aboard with a bowel filled with sarin gas.

>> ^asynchronice:
I must be getting older; all I see are trust fund babies looking for drama.


1) If you peeked out of your house (their dorm) to watch a riot and police pummeled you with tear gas preventing you from getting back to your home you'd be pretty fucking pissed and or traumatized.
2) I don't think many trust fund kids go to the university of Pittsburg but isn't it a bad sign when even the trust fund kids are being tear gased?
3) Yeah they over did the drama a bit "severely burned" etc but kids over react by nature, not design.
4) There's the whole other issue of whether actual protesters have a right not to be tear gassed.

It's all about violent unaccountable unilateral authority being repugnant. Can I do the same thing to you and tell you you're a baby looking for drama?

I think the point Shole was making is that there's no net momentum transfer after things settle to equilibrium. The rocket is able to change the momentum of the Earth by firing off exhaust gases at high velocity but those will eventually come to a stop due to drag with the atmosphere which will then transfer the momentum back to the Earth again. So it's more like the rocket would have a temporary shift to the Earth's rotation which would then return to its original position. The ice cap would be the same situation so long as it eventually came back to rest. In order to permanently alter the Earth's rotation some angular momentum would have to be permanently transferred to something else.

>> ^Razor:
>> ^deathcow:
Notice the holes are pre-drilled. Do you think they pumped that melon full of something combustible? I guess they are pretty wet inside (I've never American Pie'd one or anything.)

I'd take the guess that such a large amount of direct current caused the water in the watermelon to decompose rapidly to hydrogen and oxygen. Both would expand rapidly, being partial cause to the explosion as pressure inside increased. Additionally, the combination of gases is highly combustible, and any spark generated between the electrodes would be enough to cause them to ignite, causing an additional pressure increase and explosion.


I think the electricity made it explode.

>> ^deathcow:
Notice the holes are pre-drilled. Do you think they pumped that melon full of something combustible? I guess they are pretty wet inside (I've never American Pie'd one or anything.)


I'd take the guess that such a large amount of direct current caused the water in the watermelon to decompose rapidly to hydrogen and oxygen. Both would expand rapidly, being partial cause to the explosion as pressure inside increased. Additionally, the combination of gases is highly combustible, and any spark generated between the electrodes would be enough to cause them to ignite, causing an additional pressure increase and explosion.

>> ^nathanofborg:
Just as water is a fluid composed of water particles and air is a fluid composed of different gases and vapors, sand is a fluid composed of solid particles of matter.


Not exactly. The physical principles that keep for instance water clumped into droplets and the ones at work in this video are very different. But it is a well-known phenomenon in physics that radically different microscopic mechanisms often give rise to similar macroscopic phenomena. Another example is the similarity between mountain ranges and the microscopic surface of certain minerals, regarding their fractal nature.

Just as water is a fluid composed of water particles and air is a fluid composed of different gases and vapors, sand is a fluid composed of solid particles of matter.

>> ^Fade:
Jeez who piped NOS into the room?


random thought: has there been any research done about using different types of gases to lure consumers into stores / shopping malls / fast food restaurants? an obvious one is gases that smell really nice, i think they're used already... but what about legal psychoactive gases?

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
The Middle East has nearly 60% of the planet's oil reserves. If none of them have privatized their oil, wouldn't that make the privatized oil companies the underdogs?
Oh, nevermind, that just detracts from the simple answers people seem to want.
Iraq has oil. America is a corporation run by oil companies. America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil. Thank goodness it's that simple and no more thinking or complexity needs to be considered. baa, baa, baa.
No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts. And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.
And now we're only telling Iraq to either sign very long term leases with private oil companies who expect over ten times the going rate for extracting that oil, or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country after we bombed it back to the stone ages.
Oil companies the underdogs? Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.



Whats ironic is that you and others who make comments like this seem not to have cared a whit about what was happening to Iraqis and Kurds whilst under Saddam. Aside from the issue of "stealing" oil or whatever the case may be I challenge anyone to say that Iraqis and Kurds lived great lives under Saddam. Americans went in there stirred the Hornets nest and now are trying to make lemonade out of lemons. If it works (still a long road) then it will be one of the greatest things ever but if it doesnt (with the help of people who are blinded by their indignance) then it will be a disaster. Point is....no saddam is good stuff. But perhaps people like you are removed and immersed enough in your pacifist dreamland to not have cared about the wives, sisters and daughters who were regularly stolen and raped while their siginficant others were fed feet first into wood-chipers by Saddams sons. I suppose the gasing of thousands of Kurds was awesome too so long as we weren't "stealing" oil. As long as its not close to home right? Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well.

Well I guess Americans could have just sanctioned Saddam into compliance. Seems to work great so long as the UN gets involved right? Maybe he would have slowed down with the mass graves, the torturing of families and other potential non-compliants and the utilization of what was the 3rd largest army in the world. I agree with your thought-process....as long as the slaughtering of thousands is kept in house and perpetrated by the local tyrant then we should never...under any circumstances....interfere. The loss of lives is never acceptable especially when made in the name of other less fortunate people. And asking for any sort of compesation in return, in whatever form, is always a big no-no as well.

That is so rad. Too bad it's so short. I love the hole in the clouds caused presumably by the heat and toxic gases.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Does anyone else find it funny that the biggest known object in the universe is named 'big dog' (in Latin)?


That's like saying "Isn't it funny that the first ever BATTLE took place in a town called BATTLE? What a coincidence!"

As though they pull names out of a hat and they pull out one that translates to "little penis" and go "oh well, the hat never lies". They called it big dog.

But also, it's the largest known star, i don't think it's the largest known object. That title goes to a very large blob of gases and stars.

well aside from the brain, the only thing your head really does as far as survival goes is eat, and provide some extra tubes for the gases. his throat was apperently just fine, and as long as they hand "fed" his throat with water and food, theres no reason he couldn't have breathed just fine. the only real issue is his brain being gone, but while a part of it was, most of the brain stem (and an ear) was still there.