Licks the spoon, and puts it back in the pan lol

I'm also amazed that they can capture the projectile on a panning camera.

Neil deGrasse Tyson would approve. Let them jump in puddles. Let them bang on pots and pans. Let them stick keys in electrical outlets. NO! WAIT! I made that one up.

I still wear my t-shirt from that time....

This is your cat.... (drawing of a cat lounging)
This is your cat on drugs.... (same cat drawing)
This is your cat on a hot skillet. (drawing of a frantic cat flailing in a smoking frying pan)
Any questions?

Pretty much any permutation is better than the hyperbolic original.

Any sources for these claims of single identified cause? And I don't mean youtube videos of some guy saying that it has been solved. Oh, and preferably not studies funded by agribusiness with vested interest either.

I ask because over the years there have been plenty of "revelations" claiming to have solved the mystery for good that never quite panned out, so, you know, I am a little skeptical.

I think it was originally intended for sports broadcasts that were 1080i (interlaced), and fast left-right camera pans would create a lot of tearing.

I hate smoothing (soap-opera-effect) too.
I have a friend who likes it though, and got mad at me when I changed his TV settings to disable it.

We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.

Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.

I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

If the singular is this and the plural is these,
Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be named kese?

Then one may be that, and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose;

We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.

The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!

So our English, I think, you all will agree,
Is the craziest language you ever did see.

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble, but not you,
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?

Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word,
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.

And dead; it's said like bed, not bead;
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!

Watch out for meat and great and threat;
They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.

And here is not a match for there,
Or dear and fear for bear and pear.

And then there's dose and rose and lose,
Just look them up, and goose and choose.

And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.

And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.

A dreadful language? Why, man alive,
I'd learned to talk it when I was five,
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn't learned it at fifty-five!

Congratulations! Your video, Enhance, Enhance, Pan Right, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 293 Badge!

Your video, Enhance, Enhance, Pan Right, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Even if Americans wouldn't accept the level of taxes and other wealth distribution methods that happen in Denmark, I think that we'd almost certainly be net better off / "happier" / have a higher standard of living if we moved in that direction at least a little bit.

Yes, Americans want to be rich. But, the 1% is going to be relatively equally happy whether they are 10 times, 100 times, or 1000 times richer than the 98th percentile just below them. Today, that disparity is massive. In eras that the GOP likes to remember as the good ol' days, say the 1950s, rich was still rich but nowhere near as far beyond the middle class as it is today.

High(er) taxes, particularly on income in those top percentile tax brackets, allow for the superior infrastructure, health care, and educational opportunities that benefit *everyone* and allow for the "American Dream" of anyone being able to make it big with a good idea, a lot of hard work, and a little luck. I don't think that recipe for success actually pans out in modern America, and that is a shame.

This is making me feel better about the wear on my non-stick pans.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'music, people, talent' to 'street, belgium, peru, llama, puppeteer, pan flute, guitar, antwerp' - edited by Eklek

@smr
Well, there was a fight over the definition of butter too, but not what you described.

I think the biggest difference is the possibility that the public could confuse one product for another.

The public uses nut milk as a substitute for animal milk, you put it on cereal, in shakes, dunk cookies in it, etc. It's a white liquid that differs in taste, but is made to be close to animal milk.

The fight over "butter" as a definition happened between butter and margerine. The butter people, at one point even lobbied for a law making it so magerine could not be sold in the color yellow. It makes sense to some degree. They are similar products. They are used in almost identical application.

It's probably the case that nothing like that happened with peanut butter because it's not close enough to regular butter to be confused as churned milk fat.

One could argue that people may put peanut butter on toast with jelly with their breakfast, possibly; but they'd know what product they are using. No one would try to put a dollop of apple or peanut butter in a pan to fry up some eggs. They are night and day different products and it's not as though one would be confused about what you were getting into with the purchase of apple butter instead of butter.

Whereas milk vs almond milk seem similar enough, and butter and margerine are similar enough and both used the same; the FDA then decided that a distinction should be made.

I think it's fair for the dairy industry to lobby for this. It's an argument of definition.

You make almond milk basically by taking almonds and blending them up with water then straining.


They could call it "milk-substitute" perhaps. Point being, it's not the same thing as milk from a cow.

Peanut butter went through a similar episode in history when Jif added a bunch of crap that wasn't peanuts to its mix.

"Jif, in an effort to overtake Skippy and Peter Pan, added sweeteners and reduced their actual peanut content to improve the flavor and increase the profit margin. According to a lab study (granted, by a lab run by Skippy’s parent company, Best Foods), Jif peanut butter contained 25 percent hydrogenated oil and only 75 percent actual peanuts. This greatly concerned the FDA and other consumer groups."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/12/food-labels-peanut-butter-hearings/

Today, you can't call a product "peanut butter" unless it's made of at least 90 percent ground up peanuts. Otherwise it has to be labeled "peanut-spread."

See also: Pringles are not "chips" they are "potato-crisps" http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/the-inventor-of-the-pringles-can-was-buried-in-one/

Wow. That guy with the trowel--after that pan out--has the shittiest job on the crew by far.