As a born and raised citizen of Germany, I hereby request, no, demand that this man is brought to Israel and talk to the people down there like that. That'll be fun to watch.
I'd even bring popcorn along.

I think Abrams was a pretty good choice. He represents the opposite of the fundamental thing I didn't like about the prequels, namely that Lucas took himself and the films too seriously (on top of being a crappy director in general). Abrams makes good action/adventure popcorn flicks, which is where the series needs to go, at least for the first film.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've tried most of these things. the tooth brushing thing is really popular among certain circles - but too gross for me.

My one, single awesome tip for coconut oil is that popcorn cooked in it is absolutely awesome. Like cinema popcorn only 10 X better.

There's a video on VideoSift that goes into great detail about it. That's where I learned the differences. It's fascinating really...

Ah, here it is. Grab some popcorn and enjoy:

It's clever, but I don't really use my microwave enough to justify this. I know some people do quite clever things with it, but in general I use it to reheat leftovers and make popcorn.

I would definitely be against putting a screen on the microwave. Between computers, phones, tablets, smart tvs, I have plenty of things with displays on them. I have no desire to look up recipes on my microwave.

Fixed... sort of.
I got rid of the popcorn... but the video isn't working for me in Firefox. Chrome is running it fine.
..anyone else able to see it?

I'm seeing a video about popcorn.

Proving atheists believe in nothing, therefore they will believe anything. How does one atheist convince another atheist of their believe system? Wouldn't that take a lot of faith? And if it's science, wouldn't that take faith in science, which has proven to be incomplete since day one?

But i'll sit down, since the atheists are talking. Popcorn, please.

Unfortunatly, it's not just Merkel and her cabinet. It's the press, it's the economics departments at universities, it's politicians at all levels. Call it an economic nationalism, hell-bent to defend what they know to be the moral way of doing business. Everything left of this special flavour of market fundamentalism has been systematically attacked and suppressed for at least 30 years.

For instance, our socialist party, still referred to as the fringe of what is acceptable, runs on what is basically a carbon-copy of social-democrat programmes from the '70s. Similar to the British Green Party and Labour. Krugman, Stiglitz, Baker, Wolff, DeLong -- they'd all be on the fringe in Germany. Even the likes of Simon Johnson (IMF) or Willem Buiters (City Group).

If you speak out in favour of higher inflation (wage growth) to ease the pressure on our brothers and sisters in southern Europe, you'll be charged with waging a war against German saver. "You want to devalue what little savings a nurse can accrue? Don't you support blue collar workers?"

The same blue collar workers have been stripped of their savings by 15 years of wage suppression, the same blue collar workers are looking at poverty when they retire, because the PAYGO pension system was turned into a capital-based system that only works to your benefit if you never lose your job, always pay your dues and reach at least age 95. The previous system survived two world wars without a problem, yet was deemed flawed when they realized how much money could be channeled into the financial system – only to disappear at the first sight of a crisis, eg every five to ten years.

Similarly, you could point out that a focus on trade surpluses might not be the greatest of ideas, given the dependence it creates on foreign demand, a weak currency and restricted wage growth domestically. But they'll call you a looney. "The trade surplus is a result of just how industrious our workers, how creative our scientists and how skilled our engineers are. It's all innovation, mate! Are you saying we force the others to buy our stuff? That's madness."

You simply cannot have an open discussion about macroeconomics in Germany. Do I have to mention how schizophrenic it makes me feel to read contradictory descriptions of reality every day? It's bonkers and everyone's better off NOT reading both German and international sources on these matters.


Any compromise would have to work with this in mind. They'd have to package in a way that doesn't smell like debt relief of any kind. People know that stretching the payment out over 100 years equals debt relief, but it might just be enough of a lie to get beyond the level of self-deception that is simply part of politics. If they manage to paint Varoufakis' idea of growth-based levels of payment as the best way to get German funds back, people might go for it. Not sure if our government would, but you could sell it to the public. And with enough pressure from Greece, Spain, Italy, and France most of all, maybe Merkel could be "persuaded" to agree to a deal.

As for Syriza's domestic problems: it's a one-way ticket to hell. Undoing decades of nepotism under external pressure, with insolvency knocking on your door? Best of luck.

Italy is hard on Greece's heels in terms of institutional corruption. Southern Italy, in particular, is an absolute mess. Given the size of the Italian economy, Syriza better succeed, so their work can be used as a blueprint. Otherwise we're going to need a whole lot of popcorn in the next decade...


Edit: Case in point, German position paper, as described by Reuters. As if the elections in Greece never took place.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Yay, all the way.

But better prepare the strategic popcorn reserve. If they truly pull it off, the British establishment will go into full-blown scorched earth mode, the Belgian and Spanish establishments will shit themselves -- and the average schmuck will get it up the ass.

Whatever the majority vote for, it's going to get ugly.

Your video, MythBusters - Instant Popcorn, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*grabs some popcorn

Firstly, I wouldn't presume to know all of the accents in any country I've ever lived in, so I'm shocked you do. And yes, I know the difference between a rural Irish accent and a Dublin accent, although let's face it, if Gillen had put on a true rural Irish accent, most people would have had a hard time understanding it. Also, he is an eccentric doctor who probably puts on airs to seem more mysterious, sounds like a solid character backstory to me.

Secondly, in the trailer and movie, you actually hear a mashup of different actors' voices in the confessional to specifically cloud who might be the culprit. If you re-watch (say, by downloading it) it you might hear one voice at first and then another a few seconds later. While I do agree the identity of culprit may not drive the plot of the entire movie, it isn't irrelevant as every encounter with a new person has you wondering "is this the guy?"

As for watching it in a cinema, let's open up that discussion. Movie theatres are run by cheap dickheads and I am refusing to reward them by not going. Case in point: Popcorn is sold at 12.75x cost, pop at 4-6x cost, other fast food joints within the place are up to 3x more expensive than outside and you couldn't bring your own food if you wanted to because they won't let you. Tickets are more expensive than a cheap motel room. I have to sit in a room with 100 other people (who might have kids with them depending on the movie) who will no doubt find a way to ruin my movie-going experience. The theatre plays up to 30 minutes of commercials and trailers for things I could easily see at home on my own goddamn time. In some countries movies have intermissions like I am watching a five act Shakespearean play and not a dumbass Michael Bay movie, and then they play more commercials before they restart.

Movie theatres are dumb and should be reserved for those movies that deserve them, not just because you save money but also because every penny you don't give to theatre owners is for the betterment of society.