Tags for this video have been changed from 'poolates, jugs, boobies, funbags' to 'poolates, jugs, boobies, funbags, zuzana' - edited by xxovercastxx

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he won't be squeezing any other jugs for a while.

Yeah, I went there

"But now look at the third gallon jug. It has been destroyed by an orbiting space laser that vaporized an area the size of a city block. With this, a police office can take out all the Bad Guys he wants, at no risk to himself."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'whitest, kids, you, know, drugs, pcp, milk jug, awkward' to 'whitest, kids, you, know, drugs, pcp, milk jug, awkward, WKYK' - edited by burdturgler

Tags for this video have been changed from 'drugs, pcp, milk jug, awkward' to 'whitest, kids, you, know, drugs, pcp, milk jug, awkward' - edited by burdturgler

This product is essentially a simple version of a platypus or other water bladder. My interpretation is that the only thing important about it is that it can be hand made with basic tools thus simplifying the logistics of getting clean water to a population in the event of a natural disaster. Other than that scenario, a 3 gallon glass jug is probably a better choice.

aww c'mon don't be so sensitive spoco2. Like you said, they don't know what they're talking about. You're putting too much emotion into it.

When I was young I called olympic swimmers fishes, and said I wanted the famous singer on TV to be my mom because she had bigger jugs than my mom. Although, my mom did get a little offended when she kept digging into it, and I eventually said something like, 'because she's prettier than you'.


It's all kid talk. Don't dig deeper if you don't wanna hear something you might not like. Just don't give them the chance to explain themselves and quickly change the subject LOL.

128x128 Sifter jug PNG

I see Dag fixed the sifter - still here's 128x128 one anyway

bronze star
silver star
gold star

bronze diamond
silver diamond

Titties is right. Breasts cause cleavage when jugs try to gain gonzagas over boobs.

^jonny

1. You are correct that this is another debate. My only intention was to discuss this in humans as I am talking about economics. Robots might very well be able to interact with human beings--but if they could, I argue, you would have to call them "alive."

2. What is your definition of a "right" ? You are free to define it in any way you want--words are just labels. I made my argument by assuming the meaning of words--all of which I defined. As defined, my argument is irrefutable, and will continue to be so until someone explicitly refutes it. Challenging my definitions of "right" or "morality" is not valid because I explicitly defined each in the proof. You are using your definitions to try to apply to my logic and that is not possible.

3. Forget self-determination, it means the same thing as the right to life. It is not a precondition. Read the proof again--I show explicitly how I arrive from this:
"This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life.""
to this:
"for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action."

All I am doing is substituting words which have identical meaning. The first concept is more abstract so I am merely putting it into common language.

Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.
This is false--I just disproved it above. Again you are confusing "convince" with "coerce". Coercion and compulsion cannot be executed without physical force. That is--physical force on you or someone else.

4. You are severely mixed up. Steve is not threatening anyone. If he was, why would he give them any water, why wouldn't he just take the sun hat? He is exercising his right to own property...nobody is entitled to his water if he doesn't want to trade it. These ideas are radical, I understand that. You are twisting up what steve "should do" and what steve "has the right to do". Yes, if steve is a decent human being who doesn't want to see 5 people die in the desert he should share his water. That is another question altogether. Steve has no obligation to share it, if he chooses not to. He violates nobody's rights by going off to himself in a corner, and drinking the whole jug. How could he if he owns the jug of water?

In effect, you are saying that steve has the obligation to sustain everyone else. This is a serious statement and you need to prove it.

Your sense of "what someone should do" is severely clouding your ability to digest this information--and I understand why. This idea seems to flies in the face of probably everything you've ever heard--just as it did me when I first heard it. However, what someone "should do" and what someone has the "right to do" are two independent things. What someone "should do" is defined by culture, what someone "has the right to do" arises from the fact that they are a living being with the right to life--as I demonstrated above.

Societal values are different than moral values. Morality, here, is the binary label on whether you violate another's rights. If you violate another's rights, you are acting immorally. If you do not, you are acting morally. Thus, steve can choose not to share his water, and be acting "morally" (as defined above)--although upon returning will probably be regarded as a pretty wicked individual (by cultural or societal standards). Societal values change in time which is why they should never be used as a moral guide. If we did, we would think slavery was "moral" 300 years ago just because society did not condemn it. It is important to distinguish between the two because both play important roles.

Without the "right to life" society is not possible, all you would have would be a mass of violence and meaningful interaction would be few and far between. Societal values are also important as they help hold a society together. The reason this probably seems foreign as our current philosophy emphasis societal values but says little to nothing of actual human rights. It tries to muddle the two together and that is just false--its what the bible does, its what the bill of rights does, it whats the UN's "human declaration of human rights" does. None of these mention anything about "the right to life" except perhaps in "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" but even here it is not emphasized. I have shown above that human beings have certain inalienable rights (right to life, right to property), that humans must adhere to through all time, and in all countries, societies, cultures, and geographical regions.

Does that help any?

Overall, do you think my proof is valid?

1. Thumbnails for all the preferred video hosts. Not every video host on the planet, mind you, but the just for the 16 preferred hosts. Hosts that currently need thumbnails (as far as I know):
- Yahoo
- Dailymotion
- Google
- Myspace
- The Onion
- Video Jug
- SpikeTV (formerly iFilm)

2. New video hosts so that sub-Gold members have more choices. A few suggestions:
- Veoh
- Funny Or Die
- blip.tv
Make sure they get thumbnails too if they're brought on board.

3. Get rid of Fora.tv and V-Social as preferred hosts. No one ever uses them.

4. Add a new tab along the top row next to "Blogs" called "Other Features." Here's what I'd like to see in the "Other Features" section:
- tag cloud
- Top 15 new comments
- and other small features that members would like to see

>> ^lighthouse:
The sad truth of the matter is that Taco Smell probably made a profit on the 'transaction'.
From Pollen's Fast Food Nation:
“Today McDonald’s sells more Coca-Cola than anyone else in the world. The fast food chains purchase Coca-Cola syrup for about $4.25 a gallon. A medium Coke that sells for $1.29 contains roughly $.09 worth of syrup. Buying a large Coke for $1.49 instead, as the cute girl behind the counter always suggests, will add another 3 cents worth of syrup — and another 17 cents in pure profit for McDonald’s.” (pg 54)
The Math:
Large coke is ~$1.50 and has ~$0.12 of syrup. A large is say 32 oz or 1/4 of a gallon. That jug looks about 3 gallons to me or 3 4=12 Large cokes. 12 12c = $1.44. Taco Bell made a nickle off that chump.


You didn't figure in the carbonated water that's mixed with the syrup to make the drink. What about their utility bills and other expenses with operating a business? They also have to pay their employees.

I won't argue that Fast food chains are a ripoff, they sell crappy food that's not worth what they charge, but ripping them off because of that doesn't make it right.

The sad truth of the matter is that Taco Smell probably made a profit on the 'transaction'.

From Pollen's Fast Food Nation:
“Today McDonald’s sells more Coca-Cola than anyone else in the world. The fast food chains purchase Coca-Cola syrup for about $4.25 a gallon. A medium Coke that sells for $1.29 contains roughly $.09 worth of syrup. Buying a large Coke for $1.49 instead, as the cute girl behind the counter always suggests, will add another 3 cents worth of syrup — and another 17 cents in pure profit for McDonald’s.” (pg 54)

The Math:
Large coke is ~$1.50 and has ~$0.12 of syrup. A large is say 32 oz or 1/4 of a gallon. That jug looks about 3 gallons to me or 3*4=12 Large cokes. 12*12c = $1.44. Taco Bell made a nickle off that chump.

I watched this live. Man, I just grabbed myself 14 bags of popcorn, 2 pints of ice cream and a jug of red vines and was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

If you like Crumb, I would suggest you check out the recordings he did with his band, "The Cheap Suit Serenaders", for Yazoo records-excellent jug-bandish revival....