Energy is neither created nor destroyed. A V8 converts gasoline into CO2, water and heat which increases pressure within a cylinder and in turn propels a piston that moves the car. This uses air to move a piston (and could be used to move a car). Gas = air in this example.

well that's about $3800 Canadian...

What I don't understand is why there was gasoline in her trunk.

Blacked out
Pop queen, amphetamine
The screams crashed into silence

Tapped out
Doused in the gasoline
The high times going timeless

Decadence
Death of the innocence
The pathway starts to spiral

Infamy
All for publicity
Destruction going viral

Light it up
Ah, light it up
Another hit erases all the pain
Bulletproof
Ah, kill the truth
You’re falling, but you think you’re flying high
High again

Sold your soul
Built a higher wall
Yesterday
Now you’re thrown away

Same rise and fall
Who cares at all?
Seduced by fame
A moth into the flame

Twisted
Backstabbing wicked
The delusion absolution

Perjurer
Fame is the murderer
Seduce you into ruin

Light it up
Ah, light it up
Another hit erases all the pain
Bulletproof
Ah, tell the truth
You’re falling, but you think you’re flying high
High again

Sold your soul
Built the higher wall
Yesterday
Now you’re thrown away

Same rise and fall
Who cares at all?
Seduced by fame
A moth into the flame
Burn

Guarantee your name, you go and kill yourself
The vultures feast around you still
Overdose on shame and insecurity
If one won’t do that fistful will

Death scene
Black hearse the limousine
A grave filled with seduction

Vaccine
Fame does the murdering
She builds up for destruction

So light it up
Ah, light it up
Another hit erases all the pain
Bulletproof
Ah, no excuse
You’re falling, but you think you’re flying high
High again

Sold your soul
Built the higher wall
Yesterday
Now you’re thrown away

Same rise and fall
Who cares at all?
Seduced by fame
A moth into the flame

Addicted to the
Fame

Yes, the system sucks.

Yes, Clinton's a terrible candidate and won't make a very good president.

So your alternative is to hand things over to an egomaniac, so self-centered he said he'd go to war over a rude gesture? A guy who literally wants to nuke people who disagree with him just to show how 'strong' America is?

It's like the doctor tells you that cancer has invaded your body and you have two choices, you can take the chemotherapy and radiation (Clinton) which will make you sick and probably won't help much, or, he offers you an alternative, "Oh great," you say, blindly. "I'll take the alternative."

The doctor douses you in gasoline and lights a match. "All hail President Trump."

Should have thrown lit matches after the gasoline one. That would have been a great jape.

I agree with the general idea -- we should continue to spend, and spend MORE, on getting lead out of the environment (especially in homes and public utilities like water, etc.).

But I do have a semi-minor nit to pick. Oliver mocked the lead industry shill guy from the '70s for suggesting that better general health across the population at the time was because "we must (have been) doing something right", and therefore lead paint must not be dangerous. Yet one of his own major argument points comes from referencing a "study" that shows that every dollar invested in lead abatement ends up returning 17+ times that much in societal gain due to lower crime rates, lower medical bills, etc.

That's a problem because BOTH of those arguments are making a correlation equals causation error. The lead industry shill was wrong -- general population health was higher in the '70s than ever before because of advances in medicine. Lead was holding it back -- but to be fair, only to a tiny degree compared to the gains made in general health care.

I'd argue Oliver's cited study is equally wrong (or at least misleading) -- OK, crime may be lower, but I seriously doubt that spending more on removing lead contributes to that much at all. And total costs of health care spent on caring for people with lead poisoning are almost certainly lower now than they have been previously, but the lion's share of that (legitimate) financial gain undoubtedly came from banning lead paint and then leaded gasoline -- as seen in Oliver's graph of "average blood lead levels of children aged 1 to 5" which dropped incredibly fast between 1980 and 1990, and then much more slowly since then.

So any financial return on further investment in getting rid of lead is very very unlikely to live up to the same rate that it did in the 80s. I doubt that the study accounted for that, if it is also including tenuous things like crime rate to trump up its numbers...

Oliver is right to later suggest that "not poisoning children" is a better argument for getting rid of lead than "17 times financial return on money invested into lead removal". Just stick with the poisoning argument instead of the dubious correlation vs causation study.

The problem with this kind of retaliation is that only one guy was tailgating but everybody pays the price. I would definitely track him down and put gasoline in his diesel tank.

Freak gasoline fight accident.

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

That's simply the fallacy of false equivalence. Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible. It is simply a faith that many scientists and atheists have that it *must* have happened that way because of evolution. Abiogenesis because evolution is not a theory of origins, it is blind faith.

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that.

You know that life exists but what you don't know is how or why. To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias; there isn't a logical reason to do so. There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence, there isn't any for abiogenesis. Faith in God is reasonable, faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith.

Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe. I think you're confusing mechanism with agency. Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence, and that people suppress the truth because they love their sin. It's not really about evidence; I know atheists who have had out of body experiences who deny they have a soul.

boring?
I'll upvote the classic dialog:
Sister asks, "Why does it smell like gasoline?"
To which Roman replies, "Because we're at a gas station."

Also, maybe the video is like Schadenfreude, we're all expecting something to fail in a horrible way. Too bad it was just "so annoying" for the sisters, and nobody died. Too dark?

You do not seem to understand when a video does exactly what it says it is going to do, explain the process of fracking, it even showed you the drilling part, the casing part, how they set the charges and what they do...

Made by an oil company yes, to explain the process of fracking ! There isn't lollipops flowing out of the ground down there. How about a video showing how a car is made, is that propaganda as well ? stupid cars burn gasoline and use oil and radiator fluid, are you aware how much downstream damage radiator fluid causes when it gets into freshwater ? why don't we all jump down every how it's made or done video.

MUSKEGON COUNTY, Mich. — A Norton Shores man was arrested Sunday after leading police on a chase on his moped.

Norton Shores Police were dispatched to a home on Reneer Avenue west of Leon Street after Richard Shear, 28, allegedly threatened his mother and girlfriend with a sledgehammer and a knife and tried to set the house on fire.

Sources tell FOX 17 that the suspect’s mother called police after he threatened her with the weapons.

He`s accused of threatening his girlfriend too, but she told FOX 17 that never happened.

Sources also tell FOX 17 Shears attempted to light the house on fire by pouring gasoline on his landscaping then throwing a candle.

They say he also slashed an SUV’s tire before hopping on the moped and fleeing.

As FOX 17 took a closer look at the incident, we learned Shear has a history of drunk driving arrests, but we’re told he is also seeking help for mental health issues.

We’re told Shear, just like many other servicemen and women, suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a result of his time spent serving overseas in Iraq during his eight years in the Marines.

Those close to him tell us he has been struggling with PTSD, abusing alcohol to prevent dealing with the deep seeded issues and hitting rock bottom on Sunday.

Police say the chase ended back at Shear’s home when he tried running back inside but was arrested by police.

His bond has been set at $100,000.

http://fox17online.com/2014/10/27/man-on-moped-leads-muskegon-co-law-enforcement-on-low-speed-chase/

@VoodooV: "Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise."

What perks? Like roads and firemen? You know, it's not like we couldn't have those things without government. And those kinds of services are only a small portion of the federal budget. In fact, from all the excise taxes collected on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, they'd cover the roads completely, which costs around $60 billion annually. In fact, things like the EPA, Dept. of Trans, NASA, Dept. of Edu, all cost less than the revenue the federal government categorizes as "other." Look it up: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

So what about all the wars and militarism? Is that, too, a perk? And the prison industrial complex that locks up 1% of our population? What are these perks you speak of?

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

I love it when statists bring this up. I personally am not an Objectivist, and find lots of flaws with their ideology, but this is a cheap blow. Obviously it shows the economic illiteracy of most statists. For one, she's forced to pay into social security, so therefore why shouldn't she receive some of it back? And second, if you spend more than a couple seconds reading about U.S. monetary policy, you'd know that the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced over time due to inflation, and hence savings are always impacted. This should alarm you instead of excite you.

The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

By all means don't take any time to point out which things he said were these things. No, that'd be helpful, and we wouldn't want to cloudy any appeals to emotion with pesky things like fact and well thought out rebuttals.

they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

I think there are plenty who do. It's just that statists don't accept those answers, or any answers that don't emulate the current status quo systems they're accustomed to. I'm not interested in replacing public schools with another bureaucracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Klog-Pfms

Its how they end up cleaning gasoline contaminated soils anyway, just run it through a giant tumbler and burn off all the fuel.