Optical lasers produce non-ionising radiation, and do not use any radioactive materials to produce the laser light, so he cannot get "radiation poisoning." Only burns from direct contact with the beam or eye damage from direct or reflected light are possible. Also as I think he mentions, at these power levels, even diffuse reflections are likely to cause eye damage, in other words it doesn't take a mirror, almost any surface will do.

Seems there are always "a bunch" of twits who live to spoil the moment for others.

The fat slob bit was only directed at anyone who chooses to sit back and nitpick and not anyone who is simply overweight but upon reflection this was a Very poor choice of words.

My apologies to the non athletes among us.




I

The ugliness of an idea reflects on the people who hold it. Islam is an utterly abhorrent ideology; it must be correct to say that its followers are in some degree less worthy than those who endorse better ethical systems.

Why do muslims deserve to live safely, to be treated with the dignity afforded to human beings, when they deny the same rights to others? There is such a thing as self-defence.

Hey @newtboy, when was the last time the US government executed someone for the crime of homosexuality?

You cut a definition from somewhere that doesn't fit common usage of the word. The common usage of the word defines the definition. Dictionaries record the common usage.

The statement the interview quoted, in the clip in question, was not bigoted.

The clip in question does not reflect your assertion. In it he says he only wants to disallow radicalised Muslims, allowing the rest to enter the country.

I'm right, but you're entitled to disagree.

I'm glad you're exiting the conversation. You show a deep disregard for facts and can't perform a nuanced analysis of a simple video clip. You have an evident loathing of Trump (whom I don't care for one way or another) and do not demonstrate objective thinking.

I heard the Hooliganism was getting out of hand, but Christ, I didn't expect them to compliment each other's wives and reflect on their priorities in life. The sport is doomed.

Probably, but there are all kinds of clear coating. They could develop one with minimal reflective properties and minimal absorptive properties, but you're right, even then it would decrease the effectiveness, but maybe not so much that it would lose it's usefulness.

I think in most applications, the nano fibers are encased in resins or other chemicals that cause them to clump together, making them much safer (note that I don't say "making them safe").
In pure powder form, yeah, they're a bit scary to have something that can float in air that can also burst cell walls. I always used a facemask and gloves when I was in his "lab", and even so I'm sure I was contaminated. Now I wish I had worn a full anti-contamination suit.

Clearcoating this stuff would remove its blacker-than-black properties. It would then start to reflect light. At which point, why would you favor this expensive shit over regular paint? I haven't seen details on how the sprayable Vantablack is applied, but if it were mixed into a liquid for application, it would have the same problem, unless, somehow, the surface of the hardened material were burnt away, evaporated off, or chemically reduced so that the carbon material could protrude from the substrate, that may allow the light absorption properties to persist. But I don't know how they accomplish that, other than they say it's a complex process that requires a specialist. I still wouldn't try brushing up against it, just like I wouldn't try sitting there inhaling paint fumes after painting a car. There's a reason precautions are taken in that process as well. I just know that something small and damaging enough to burst cell membranes sounds like something I wouldn't want in a product I'm handling with direct contact with my skin, or with any remote possibility of it rubbing off and getting into the air.

I like coming up with wild hypotheses and narratives, so here is one: The lizard saw its reflection in the camera phone. Being highly territorial, it therefore attempted to chase off the intruder who was staring him down in the reflection of the backside of the camera phone. Eventually, the "tree" supporting the camera phone reflected intruder stopped moving and the lizard ran up the "tree" and confronted the reflected intruder. However the camera phone was eventually moved for a side view causing the intruder to disappear. The lizard suddenly found itself upon a moving "tree" whose branches could move and grasp onto him, and it decided to get the heck out of Dodge.

Your offended feelings shouldn't override the identity of the feminist movement, which has no obligation to pat you on the head because you claim you were "there at the start". So yes, I hope you find a movement with a title that fits your views more closely. If you think that feminism isn't about gender equality, then I can't help you figure that out.

"still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father..." This just isn't true; it's the kind of silly strawman that MRAs love to knock up, in fact. It's not reflected in law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

I'm not sure I understand 'all houses matter'.
I see nothing about egalitarianism that precludes me from admitting that women are farther behind in receiving equal treatment and rights on most (but not all) topics, but it does seem to more clearly reflect my goals, those being equality for all.

I think we should change the member's privilege page to reflect this change in regards to how many quede videos members get now.
http://videosift.com/starpower

@transmorpher
ha! right on man.

let me start that there really is no argument between us,just a disagreement by degrees is all.

you do not have to refute my claim that "veganism is carried out for the feeling of superiority."

because i never made that claim.
my criticism was specific and focused on a single person @ahimsa,who,if you read his commentary,is most certainly taking a morally superior stance.

if you compare how you were interacting and how ahimsa was interacting.the differences are quite stark.

you were quite open and honest on how you eventually reached veganism.(bravo my friend),but i didnt really see you berate or belittle someone for still eating meat,or being a non-vegan.

oh...you certainly argued your points and exposed weak and facile arguments.you offered new ways of looking at the situation,but you really didn't judge a person for not following your ways of thinking/being/doing.

basically you took responsibility for your choices.shared your reasons for those choices and have allowed people to make THEIR own choices.

how can you not respect that?
which is why i wanted to trade partners.
tongue in cheek of course..that was my way of giving you props and respect.

ahimsa,on the other hand,didnt even respect those he engaged with enough to even use his own words,and instead indulged in presumption,laziness and pretentious twattery.(god,i love that phrase.thank you britain!)

ahimsa approached veganism much the same way a newly born again person approaches talking about their new love for jesus,by proselytizing.

being a man of faith i can understand and relate to someone experiencing a profoundly life changing event,manifested by a serious epiphany and the desire to share that new understanding with everyone you meet.confident in an absolute certitude of righteousness.

but it can be so aggravating to be on the receiving end of such self righteousness,because there has been little time of actual examination and reflection.the newness and novelty cloud all other considerations and ANY rebuttal or deviation is seen as an affront,a sacrilege and blasphemy and therefore should be dismissed...entirely.

i suspect that ahimsa is young and his/her veganism is fairly new and fresh.this would explain the religious quality of his/her arguments.

YOU..on the other hand,have approached from a far more even handed and open way.choosing instead to use humor and wit to make your arguments while not judging those you disagree,allowing for a real dialogue which can lead to understanding.

so good on you mate.

i specifically like the fact you lay out your journey and the reasons why ,but you do not admonish those for not following the same path.which is the correct way to engage.

and what i REALLY dig,is that your argument is basically "this is how i came to where i am,and i am betting that you will to...eventually".

because,at it's heart,you are 100% correct.there really IS no reason to eat meat.

a person who eats meat really has only ONE reason and that is simply "because i want to".now there are cultural and racial reasons,long standing heritage and dishes passed down over generations,and you acknowledge that,because it really is important and is underlying reason why so many still eat meat(and because we want to).

but i suspect that your final argument is more correct than incorrect.meat will eventually go away and be replaced by something better and more healthy.

but that takes time.possibly a generation or two.maybe three.
you recognize this,while ahimsa does not.

i also suspect you may be heading on your way to old fartdom.

anyways,thanks for the dance mate.
you seem a righteous dude.

OK, here's a much better shot of the icing, showing that it's both a different size piping and slightly different color, and also video proof that the upc label is in a different place from when he purchased it...so yes, fraud, lies, and debunked are all appropriate, as is a title change to reflect the lie that this was....like 'whole foods anti-gay slur hoax' or something

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.