To be fair, I'm not actually sure what the right move would be even with the outside perspective and unlimited time to think about it. Maybe the best thing is to keep it rolling, point it somewhere safe and jump. Maybe stop immediately (assuming the brakes still work) and run the hell away. Also, that's a pretty big, very hot looking, thick-black-smoke belching fire. The driver might already not be in a condition to do anything.

For all the talk of the general unattractiveness of the UK, Aisling Bea is very hot. Almost as hot as Jimmy Carr's laugh.

I'd like to see this video on a regular hot and sunny day.
It gets hot here. on a regular summer day we can easily get to 35ºC - 40ºC (95ºF - 104ºF) - inside a car, it will climb to 50ºC (122ºF) and hotter.

I've sat in a car with the windows rolled up (not even realizing), and after about four minutes, I was drenched in Sweat and burst a vessel in my nose, causing a nose bleed.

This guys example couldn't even have been on a very hot day - maybe a warm day - not a hot one though...

but you don't put a container of acid between your legs because it's well understood that it's dangerous. There are personal responsibilities in life which means by the time you are a certain age you should know that coffee is very hot and should be treated with respect. By your argument if somone buys a lighter and accidentally sets fire to their clothes then it's the lighter manufaturer's fault.
she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her legs, she was just stupid and it was unfortunate for her but she definitely used it in a way that was clearly dangerous to the majority of people.

Lots of that light has to do with the fact that not only is it instantly VERY hot , but that there is ALSO ionized gases that get created into a plasma that doesn't last very long (due to energy or heat absorption speed), but it will light up really good with the color all depending on the material hit (carbon based stuff as said above, so the photons you see are from the "energy range" released in the energy exchange through the atmospheric gases and tree/pole/whatever hit).

>> ^Kofi:

I get the feeling that if you grew up with the Harry Potter paradigm then she was someone you had a crush on. Now that she is grown up it's legitimate to sexualize her. No doubt she is pretty but she still seems like a 12 year old to me. Cute, yes. Sexy? Nope.

I didn't grow up with it--I lived through the entire 80s and 90s. I have never seen a single Harry Potter anything and I have no desire to do so. I don't find her "sexy" or "attractive" or "cute" or anything like that, and suggesting that someone would dig on underage chicks says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're accusing of such a thing.

>> ^Quboid:


I think she's very hot (and I haven't seen any Harry Potter films and don't have any weird under-age mental images) but the 'net's opinion of her seems nutty. Why do people think she's any less vacuous or self centred than anyone else? I can't help but feel that it's at least 90% because they find her attractive, which is ironically vacuous.

She is slightly pretty, but hot? I'll have to disagree with you there. Her hairy upper lip doesn't really do it for me. I find her rather average. Maybe it's the "girl next door" thing she has going on that get some guys feeling all tingly. No idea.

>> ^ForgedReality:

I honestly don't understand the big deal about her...


I think she's very hot (and I haven't seen any Harry Potter films and don't have any weird under-age mental images) but the 'net's opinion of her seems nutty. Why do people think she's any less vacuous or self centred than anyone else? I can't help but feel that it's at least 90% because they find her attractive, which is ironically vacuous.

>> ^jimnms:

I never understood why a man would want to have anal sex with a woman. We (men) sometimes use the phrase "tap that ass" or "get a piece of that ass" when we're with other guys and see a hot chick, but (at least I don't) don't mean it literally.


Well, that's good for you I guess, but for a lot of us it's got a certain taboo quality to it which makes it very hot. For me it's about the woman being so turned on she wants to do it, to totally give in to something like that. That's what's hot about it to me.

As for the actual feeling of it. For me, not really a great deal different to vaginal sex, so that's not the attraction. There are guys who say that it's awesome because of how tight it is in comparison, but eh, no big difference in that regards to me.

I'd never want to force a woman into it at all, because that would entirely remove the turn on. The turn on is that they are so aroused, they want to do something 'dirty', that it's a different feeling. So if they're only doing it because you are badgering them into it, the enjoyment is gone.

Upvoted, but it would have been cooler if the very hot girl seemed at all interested in what she was doing...

@direpickle: I think the majority of users use the "hotness" setting, not only because it's the default, but because they, like me, prefer it. I'm curious about it now, so I'll start a poll after this one ends.

As mentioned, if you want a never-stale stream of videos, just use the "newness" listing. That's all there is to it.

The staleness of the hotness listing is not specifically based on time, but based on the hotness of *other* videos. This means a video only persists on the front page until something hotter overtakes it. How quickly or slowly that happens is directly based on Sifter activity, which cannot be simulated.

In any case, as dag mentioned, it's pretty rare that any video remain on the front page for 2 days, and when that does happen, it's because the video is just very hot.

...

...

...

A HYEH HYEH HYEH HYEH!

>> ^residue:

Then I guess I won't need a jacket!
>> ^NicoleBee:
Ahhh. It is very hot today.

Then I guess I won't need a jacket!

>> ^NicoleBee:

Ahhh. It is very hot today.

Ahhh. It is very hot today.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.
And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?
It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.


You'll have troubles looking up temperature in any scientific literature because the real measure that matters in energy. Temperature is just a measure of how much energy a particular object is storing in the form of heat. Jwray's very valid point is simply that a skyscraper is storing an utterly enormous amount of energy in the form of gravity. If even a small portion of that energy is converted to heat, which a collapse is guaranteed to do, it will raise temperatures of whatever material absorbs that heat. If it is concentrated enough it could melt whatever is heated up. The point is simply that the collapse turned more than enough energy into the form of heat to melt a good mass of steel, the question is only how that energy was distributed through the wreckage. Odds are in a random collapse it will be distributed fairly broadly, meaning less temperature increase per mass, but the already very hot steel may not have needed that much either.

All said, it is absolutely hard to say. Meaning it's hard to rule out the collapse and simmering fires within the wreckage couldn't have melted some steel over time. Hard say that would be expected either. The more complex an event is the harder it is to predict.

I always wondered why to my mother that we couldn't just throw all the nuclear waste into a volcano like Kīlauea?? Could we? Have they!?
I think this is a good explanation. FROM INTERNET

Dumping all our nuclear waste in a volcano does seem like a neat solution for destroying the roughly 29,000 tons of spent uranium fuel rods stockpiled around the world. But there’s a critical standard that a volcano would have to meet to properly dispose of the stuff, explains Charlotte Rowe, a volcano geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. And that standard is heat. The lava would have to not only melt the fuel rods but also strip the uranium of its radioactivity. “Unfortunately,” Rowe says, “volcanoes just aren’t very hot.”

Lava in the hottest volcanoes tops out at around 2,400˚F. (These tend to be shield volcanoes, so named for their relatively flat, broad profile. The Hawaiian Islands continue to be formed by this type of volcano.) It takes temperatures that are tens of thousands of degrees hotter than that to split uranium’s atomic nuclei and alter its radioactivity to make it inert, Rowe says. What you need is a thermonuclear reaction, like an atomic bomb—not a great way to dispose of nuclear waste.

Volcanoes aren’t hot enough to melt the zirconium (melting point 3,371˚) that encases the fuel, let alone the fuel itself: The melting point of uranium oxide, the fuel used at most nuclear power plants, is 5,189˚. The liquid lava in a shield volcano pushes upward, so the rods probably wouldn’t even sink very deep, Rowe says. They wouldn’t sink at all in a stratovolcano, the most explosive type, exemplified by Washington’s Mount St. Helens. Instead, the waste would just sit on top of the volcano’s hard lava dome—at least until the pressure from upsurging magma became so great that the dome cracked and the volcano erupted. And that’s the real problem.

A regular lava flow is hazardous enough, but the lava pouring out of a volcano used as a nuclear storage facility would be extremely radioactive. Eventually it would harden, turning that mountain’s slopes into a nuclear wasteland for decades to come. And the danger would extend much farther. “All volcanoes do is spew stuff upward,” Rowe says. “During a big eruption, ash and gas can shoot six miles into the air and afterward circle the globe several times. We’d all be in serious trouble.”