@Matthu

I am not a chemist. However, I think I have an approximation for you on fluoride. Prozac is composed of Fluoxetine. It's chemical formula is C17H18F3NO. The approximate mass of the fluoride is about 8% of the compound. If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day. The Daily Max for ANY weight of human is 10mgs. The average daily consumption from water is around 1mgs as well. This is about 2mgs a day from just these 2 sources. This is a hazardous level for infants and small children. In addition to tap water and medicine, food is usually processed with tap water and therefore has trace levels of fluoride. In addition, so do some sodas, juices, teas, wines, ect. Also, some salts, and interestingly enough, cigarettes ( anaesthetic methoxyflurane, isoflurane). So once again, it isn't a once source problem. Water, specifically tap water, is used in nearly every facet of food production. It's the snowball problem. This wouldn't be a problem if we just opted for personalized tap fluoride dispensers, or some other local, "toggalable" option. And really, why ingest something that is supposed to be topical? Should I start eating deodorant next?

@Tymbrwulf

Yes, but as you say, genetic mutation takes years to study...possibly generations. The profit margins are greatly increased as you say by speeding GMO's to market. This is a problem, obviously. And when you look at epigentics (and I urge everyone to consider it), a genetic mutation problem can snowball by generation.

When we talk about genetic mutation, we are talking about death, not simple side-effects. This requires long-term study. We don't really have a choice.

Most "farms"today are corporate subsidiaries. And from reports, smaller organic farms are being hit hard by those who don't bow to government/fda/corporate pressure to use their GMO seeds and pesticides. Raids on these farms and small organic grocery outlets are reported to be increasing in rate and severity. And the FDA just had their enforcement powers increased. We're talking about enforcement teams in full armor with submachine guns taking down a grocery store because they dared to sell raw milk. The "organic" movement is seen as a real threat to corporate profit margins.

I'm not a scientist, (my sister is the biochemist), but I almost died twice as a child because of exposure to "harmless" pesticides. Perhaps this affects my objectivity, or perhaps I am rightfully concerned and skeptical, given my personal history and the safety history of Monsanto and similar multinationals. But I am aware of ever increasing cancer rates, and declining fertility rates, and the common world-wide problem of corporate greed defeating notions of safety and common sense.

Your video, The Office- NEVER snowball fight with Dwight, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 6 Badge!

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Zonbie cannot promote this post because Zonbie does not have enough Power Points - ignoring promote request by Zonbie. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

Aww thanks anyway even if it didn't work.

It's to get around the studios finding their copyrighted content as it uses video matching. I guess simply mirroring it is enough to get around the automated detection process.>> ^Fusionaut:

what's up with all of these youtube viddies with mirror images?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jim, dwight, snowball, REVENGE' to 'jim, dwight, snowball, REVENGE, fear' - edited by ponceleon

I probably sounded pretty snide but that wasn't my intent.

My point is every few months someone with a diamond or higher starts complaining about how hard it is to get videos sifted. This is almost inevitably followed by requests to lower the threshold.

First, the irony of someone with a few hundred or more sifted videos complaining about how hard it is to sift them is like a multi-millionaire complaining that his income has dropped in the recession.

Second, the last thing we need to do is lower the threshold. We have more than enough toothless dogs, Japanese gameshows, Jessica Rabbit fanart slideshows, and Funny or Die clips without lowering the bar.

If someone can't get votes, maybe they should sift something that sucks less. At the very least, do what I do, and grumble to yourself about it.

Also, apologies to @blankfist who is the apparent recipient of my ranting here. It's not meant to be directed at him, but I've seen this happen enough to know that his comment is the type that will snowball into a mass hysteria like I've described.

>> ^Gallowflak:

@xxovercastxx
Ooh, ouch.
No, it's not a responsibility to upvote. It's a responsibility to participate in the community of which you're a part. It's this second sense of responsibility which I suggested was being diluted by the increasing scale of the site.
Is there a problem here?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute. Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.
It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system it has to be the primary case consideration and not added on as a periphery.
Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plain, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

>> ^EMPIRE:
Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.


Yeah, was thinking about that too. I think you'd need to anchor the majority of the chutes to where the wings connect with the fuselage. Thats where the weight of the aircraft is carried in flight, and I guess thats the best place to balance the weight between front and back. You'd then need sort of guide shoots at the tail and nose to correct its pitch. Even then, if you lose a wing like this plane did, and your not going in nose first then I think the next problem is rolling...

basically, rocket boosters aren'y too concerned about which way they fall, as long as its slowly.

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute (also note that empty rocket boosters are much lighter than full rocket boosters). Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.

It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system has to be the primary methodology and not added on as a periphery.

Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plane, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

I would wager even if such a system could be made to work, cases that it could be made for would be less than 1% of crashes that occur. Getting smashes by weather, misdirected my flight control or TCAS or some other human error, or the dozens of other common flight disasters would be helped little by a functional parachute system.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

>> ^jwray:

Ideally T-Bill interest rates shouldn't even be as much as inflation. You should actually have to make an informed choice and take a risk to make money, rather than participating in an ever-snowballing hereditary aristocracy.


@jwray, I was responding to that. Maybe I just take it for granted that you can't really get T-bills to reliably be below inflation, since the US also offers inflation-protected securities (TIPS), which means you're never going to see traditional treasuries have an interest rate lower than that of TIPS + expected inflation.

I also pointed out that T-bills and longer-term US government bonds aren't the only safe investment out there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for your idea of raising taxes to balance the budget, I just think trying to eliminate the deficit during a recession would be counterproductive. It wouldn't encourage more lending, it would discourage it.

>> ^jwray:

If people aren't investing in T-Bills, they're either going to invest that money somewhere else or hoard it under their mattress. So deficit spending will help when confidence is low but won't be worthwhile at other times.
Ideally T-Bill interest rates shouldn't even be as much as inflation. You should actually have to make an informed choice and take a risk to make money, rather than participating in an ever-snowballing hereditary aristocracy.


The price on T-bills is set by auction, and I'm not so sure it'd be a wise idea to put a thumb on the scale with them. If we systematically undervalued them, then people who (randomly?) got them for less than others were willing to pay would just sell them to the people willing to pay more.

As for stopping a snowballing hereditary aristocracy, you can't eliminate the market for safe investment instruments entirely. For example, you can still buy Canadian debt, British debt, German debt, Japanese debt, AT&T debt, Microsoft debt, McDonald's debt, WalMart debt, etc.

Besides which, that's not how the snowballing hereditary aristocracies I'm familiar with have maintained an empire. Instead they hire talented people to manage their investments to maximize return while managing risk, and enjoy the endless flood of riches that result.

It seems like estate taxes, capital gains taxes, progressive income taxes and the like are the only reliable way to stop hereditary aristocracies from snowballing into virtual monarchies.

If people aren't investing in T-Bills, they're either going to invest that money somewhere else or hoard it under their mattress. So deficit spending will help when confidence is low but won't be worthwhile at other times.

Ideally T-Bill interest rates shouldn't even be as much as inflation. You should actually have to make an informed choice and take a risk to make money, rather than participating in an ever-snowballing hereditary aristocracy.

OK...

Just like the last time, I can't find any of the videos I fixed... They just are no longer there...
So instead of just searching for them, I searched in advanced mode in only the dead pool videos..

Here is the first one:
http://videosift.com/video/How-To-Properly-Slap-A-Man-RocknRolla
It doesn't come up on a search - only a Deadpool search - but it is no longer dead - it's fixed.

I'll see if I can remember any others...

Here's another - Only comes up when I searched dead videos but it's now fixed because I fixed it.
http://videosift.com/video/Carrie-Final-Scene

Another:
http://videosift.com/video/Hard-Boiled-Gunfight-at-the-Teahouse
Actually looks like kronosposeidon may have fixed this at the same time...

Another: http://videosift.com/video/Top-Gear-Challenge-Return-Home-at-Night-Don-t-Wake-Parents

Another: http://videosift.com/video/LA-Riots-Koreans-Prepare-for-Showdown

Another: http://videosift.com/video/BBC-Horizon-How-Many-People-Can-Live-on-Planet-Earth

Another: http://videosift.com/video/Flash-Snowball-Fight-in-D-C-Detective-Pulls-Gun

Another One: http://videosift.com/video/Jesse-Ventura-on-Real-Time-with-Bill-Maher-April-16-2010

Another: http://videosift.com/video/College-Humor-s-Prank-Wars-on-Kimmel

Another: http://videosift.com/video/The-Curious-Case-of-Benjamin-Batman

Another: http://videosift.com/video/Andy-Dick-Gets-Kicked-Off-Jimmy-Kimmel

Another: http://videosift.com/video/Feist-I-Feel-It-All-live-on-Jimmy-Kimmels-Bus-Show

While I agree with the cheese steak comment, I have to choose your first option. Between hanging a dalass cowboys fan over the upper deck, throwing snowballs at Santa, D-sized batteries at JD Drew (again at a Phillies game) distractions in a game are fine by most of us. You may have great fans up there in Toronto, but they are not Philly fans. So yes, people do enjoy the baseball, but they also enjoy the shenanigans that seem to encompass going to a sporting event in Philadelphia.

If some kid wants to run around on a field to eventually get tazed down by some pathetic fat fuck of a cop, I'll cheer for the kid, just like the fans in the video. He wasted a few minutes of the game to give people extra enjoyment, at great cost to himself. The fines you get for these acts are not cheap. Most times the kid tires out or runs off the field himself, the game continues. Apparently the fat fuck of a rent-a-cop didn't get that memo. This wouldn't even make the news most night except of the idiot cop.

I don't know about a magical telepathic connection, but I do know there's an etiquette surrounding these events. I bet that rent-a-cop doesn't work another sporting event here for his own safety. I'd explain fan loyalty to you, but obviously it wouldn't stick to a Blue Jays fan.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^Sigh:
"In my opinion, this was somewhat deserved anyway. If I were at a Jays game and some dumb kid started to run on the field and disrupt the game, I'd be upset. Maybe this'll serve as a type of warning to other idiots thinking about doing the same thing."
You know nothing of us Philadelphia fans, and if you are one you should be ashamed for your idiotic remarks.

Fine, fixed it for you with my own team. What's the fucking difference? I paid to see a baseball game, not some young kid showboating. I have been to a phillys game when I was down in Philadelphia, the people around me seemed to enjoy the actual baseball too.
Is there some kind of magical telepathic connection that everybody gets once they're a phillys fan that makes it so they all prefer to see some idiot on the field then watch the game? Or are they just the same kinds of fans that the rest of the baseball teams have except with really fucking good cheesesteaks in their stadium.
my vote is on the latter.

Interesting. I love time travel stuff

This is a neat play on an Einstein idea. The basic tenants of relativity make the nature of the universe like a machine. As such, the entirety of the universe has already happened; all existence has been fated. As such, there is no real problem with events from any one time influencing events of a non-adjacent time. Meaning events from the future could be directly responsible for events in the past. This eliminates a bunch of the different time-paradox problems. However, it creates a new one that I don't know that he ever addressed, and that is the snowball of extra energy and matter for all deltas.

So, let us suppose a hypothetical universe that exists for 10 seconds and is only composed of one particle. At time 10, we send that one particle back to T = 1. And time 9.99999 we send back another particle to T=1 ect ect. You see the problem, all the sudden you have a universe at time 1 with near infinite particles. Even if we correct for paradox by having all particles return the exact moment they arrive so that our universe stays consistent in the future states with only one particle, we still have the problem that at T=1 the universe was infinitely energetic seemingly violating the first law of thermodynamics.