Amateur totally fudged up the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique.

I like the movie version more. While the album one is sung by the better singer with better technique, the movie version performs the emotion better. This Herod is a worse singer but he worries less about the actual singing and more about performing the emotional state of the character. It's more an acting performance which, given the text and intention of the song, makes it IMO better. Alice Cooper's version isn't bad (better than the Album version) but I prefer this one more. Herod comes across as more condescending, arrogant and sarcastic in the movie. The singing is not that good (still better than the mixing of the song) but it has emotional truth that the album version is lacking.

All Dr. Greger is essentially saying is eat more vegetables & fruits - he's not selling some weird pill or bogus device.
You don't have to give him a cent, and can watch his videos for free. Yet everyone is acting like he's taking people's money and laughing all the way to the bank.

Funny how as soon as someone says to take responsibility for your own actions - people will do anything it takes to make sure they don't have to.

How come nobody has tried the character assassination technique on Dr. Kim Williams yet? (The top cardiologist in the US, mentioned at the end of the video, who is vegan specifically for health reasons) .

It's much easier to attack the first person the on screen that is telling you to take control of your life, because then you can feel good about not taking any action.

Correlation and causation is distinguished by controlling for variables directly where the list of possible covariates or confounders is known & limited, or when it is not, using say machine learning techniques to infer a model from the data and repeatedly cross validating it with different test and training samples to ensure that it is rigorous. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There is nothing about repeatability.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)

Repeatability has nothing to do with testing for correlation / causation. Okay, you repeat an experiment. It looks like X causes Y, like in the first test. But it turns out that Z (that you didn't consider or can't measure) is acting on X & Y at the same time, creating the appearance of a relationship between X & Y where none exists. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

If anything the political hype is underblown. Politics deals with the immediate, tangible and the "what directly helps me now." With the financial crisis, politics in the US has decreed that any action on climate change that might marginally impact wages or living standards is out of bounds.

If we assume the risks are real - polluting has specific benefits (cost reduction to polluters) and incredibly dispersed costs which are almost imperceptible for decades while the damage is being done. It requires global coordination for a cost on carbon to be politically feasible. And the effects are seen at least 40 years into the future:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

That's the problem, by the time the effects are obvious, it will be too late to react. In the meantime, you have massive amounts of money, interest groups, politics and delayed effect all acting against any action being taken.

You are the beneficiary of countless scientific advances that use statistical analysis techniques that don't rely on an obvious, guaranteed cause & effect. It is sad to me that you are not aware of your hypocrisy.

There are actually a couple of other happiness-increasing technique that is somewhat non-intuitive, is shown to increase happiness in repeated studies, and is fairly easy to implement and difficult to reverse: Having a dog or cat.

It appears that being needed by the animal makes the human feel as if they have intrinsic value which...I mean it would be nice if we had that without pets but, there it is. If you want the best bang for your buck, I would suggest a small dog or cat from the pound as it will eat significantly less food than a bigger animal.

Another life change that actually effectively increases long-term happiness on average is marriage. This seemed a little too hairy for this video though. Also, DEFINITELY NOT DOSE-DEPENDENT. One spouse...better for happiness. Two spouses USUALLY NOT.

So there you go...get a pet, get hitched, and shorten your commute. You need to get home anyway, so you can feed your dog!

SOURCES:
Homeownership doesn't increase happiness: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/realestate/homeownership-the-key-to-happiness.html?_r=0
Short Commute = $40,000 raise
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141514467/small-changes-can-help-you-thrive-happily
Commuting Linked to Lower Life Satisfaction
https://uwaterloo.ca/recreation-and-l...

Commuting and Metabolic / Cardiovascular Health
https://uwaterloo.ca/recreation-and-leisure-studies/crunched-time-commuting-linked-lower-life-satisfaction

Commuting related to lower social activity and lower general trust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4509867/

10 Things Commuting Does to your Body
http://time.com/9912/10-things-your-commute-does-to-your-body/

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video REM--Low (amazing camera techniques=old art). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Congratulations! Your comment on Amazing video editing technique! - Microsoft Unwrap Mosaics has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Amazing video editing technique! - Microsoft Unwrap Mosaics has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

They all should have prepared better for the test TBH. Inflicting pain on purpose or through bad technique is not a great idea.

Most of the "pain" for the dad is from keeping his watch and his ring on. Fairly unprofessional overall.

Good job to manoeuver through all the psychological obstacles, but meh training IMHO. That said it is better to have a good person as trainer, than an exceptionally able bad guy.

Also martial arts dont make you a slave, they make you a servant and you get to choose who or what to serve.

Breaking the board is the important bit, but how you break it is even more important. Learning how to punch correctly takes time, effort, concentration, discipline etc, you learn about yourself and about life's challenges in a natural way. It's not something that can be forced fed into you in this contrived manner, because the pain of persistent effort and burden of continual concentration in your mind is much greater than any temporary physical pain. Truly challenging yourself is much harder than any task someone else can set for you.

Otherwise, what is the lesson here? Life is hard, so don't prepare, and then use brute force to make up for it later? Life and martial arts are both about applying the most elegant and effective solution that fit the problem, not about brute forcing your way through things.

So really, the instructor has failed at training both the mind and body here. If he wants the child to believe in himself that he can punch, then teaching the right technique will give the child that confidence in much better way. The child would have never doubted his ability to punch well in the first place, as he overcame life's challenge long before it even was a challenge.

Good role model? More like psychological abuse from a jedi wannabe.

What's the point of this test? To see if the kid can break a board the wrong way?

How about he teaches the kid the correct punching technique first, so that the kid won't break his hand.

Punching has got nothing to do with pain or strength, and all about technique.

"They modeled all 1.25 million square miles of the Mississippi River and surrounding areas on more than 200 acres with the sole purpose of understanding how it would flood and which techniques worked best and how they affected things up/down river. Years earlier, they had anassed several failed large scale prevention/levee projects."

The way you wrote this---implies to me that they either misunderstood the model or the the model gave them flawed data. Or perhaps, that they got good data and ignored it (lol). I'm curious: which was it?

Nailed it for me, but that's kinda the point. Humour is subjective... As much as the comedian uses techniques to deliver his comedy, it also requires an audience that is receptive.

You could go off at this point and make all sort of assumptions about the person I am, and vice versa I could do the same re: you. Ultimately though, it doesn't really matter because we aren't all required to get the joke. We are allowed to be entertained, and we are allowed to be offended.

Though I'm not sure how "once rape isn't something that is filmed" makes a difference one way or another because the comedian isn't personally responsible (to the best of my knowledge) for standing by and allowing a rape to happen while he films it.

And I don't see why you'd duck out of the conversation because your opinion on this matter cannot be wrong. It's your point of view about a subjective piece. It's not like it's a fact for everyone that the routine is funny.

I think I see part of the problem. The other option you wondered at is you are comparing(literally) apples to grains.

If your lucky enough to live in a climate that can support orchards and vegetables that's an entirely different story. Grain farming is a different beast and you can't farm canola and wheat the same way you'd farm apples or tomatoes.

As for out here on the prairies, the average family owned and operated farm is on the 1k acre mark. Of the 20k farms in my province, more then 90% of them will be under 2k acres and virtually none of them hire more than 2 people outside their immediate sons and daughters to work there.

As for over production, the grain vs vegetables thing still hits. Crop rotation matters with grains, over production simply doesn't. Most of the land here has been passed down from parent to child for 100 years and they've always been quick to pick up on the latest innovations from new equipment to man-made fertilizers to round-up ready crops. The only consistent theme has been greater(and more consistent) yields per acre each year and correspondingly better profits for the farmer. Your gloom and doom scenario just isn't the reality for current grain farming techniques.