Honestly I don't know the first thing about celebrity gossip but I imagine it's actually quite the opposite; the dedicated tabloids would probably be much more interested in some truly trashy piece of gossip to report, and like it or not, a piece about celebrity yeast infections would probably sell way better than one covering hairstyles.

Remember the whole Gizmodo iPhone debacle? Same thing. Sure Gizmodo were to blame for being completely unprofessional, but they were simply the manifestation of the Apple fanboy hoards. We can't expect the media to practice professionalism and work ethic when we don't demand it as consumers but simply frown when they go 'over the line' (and even when they do, and we frown, we still manage to make it worth their while).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.
I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.


In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.

I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

I hope the floor was properly cleaned, and they didn't get a yeast infection.

Well written, but still factually biased. I don't dispute it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in something, but saying it takes more faith to believe in science over a religion is laughable, seeing as how most scientific processes can be duplicated in a lab, and the only time people see the immaculately concepted Jesus is in stale bread.

Calling them "errors" is an error, if you cant prove it so...

I don't even want to get started with your "#2" ...but I will touch on it:

"It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round."
You mean to tell me that it wasn't the sun he probably was referring to? It is a very vague statement, loosely translated. I mean, wasn't the voyage of Christopher Columbus nearly defunded by the Queen of Spain due to the fact most of the Catholics believed the earth was flat? How could they possibly misinterpret such a factual document as the Bible then but not now, or at any other time?

#3 is also a gross interpretation of the bibles factuality, the closest thing people had to a science was alchemy if I'm mistaken, and there is a reason we don't teach Alchemy 101 these days. It was full of holes where we as a species didn't have an understanding of our own surroundings. Take beer brewing for example, even the German purity laws had to be amended to allow yeast as a viable and lawful ingredient to beer because the humans of the past flat out didn't understand or fathom its use/need in the brewing process because it had been introduced naturally to the unaware brewers since beer has been around. <-Thank you science, not the all knowing bible. External sources are just as unreliable then as they are now, if not more so, smart people expect some credibility, and aren't the type to blindly accept.
#4 "The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology"
Most people don't dispute the correlation of events in the bible to that of actual history, its just obvious that either initially or over the years, the truth was embellished to that of an Aesop fable. The bible was meant to instill fear into the hearts of what are supposed to be "god fearing" people, what better way then writing about a hellish environment and 30 ft tall giants? (wait, was that part real, or no?) Oh and Nelson Glueck wrote that quote? Impressive... unless you consider the thousands of other scientists that have a slightly different opinion on the matter...

But I guess you can laugh at me while I burn in hell (decompose) and you are in heaven (decomposing) It would make much more sense if people would accept the fact that "God" no matter how you look at it, is just a manifestation of our own self righteousness as a species? That being said, please think "peace" and I to wish all of us a hearty blessing from "God."



>> ^shinyblurry:

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.
Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.
Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.
Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.
So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.


*Edited punctuation at 23:40 5/2/2011

i like this energy idea

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl100550k

engineered bacteria that use Sunlight and CO2 to produce simple sugars that can be converted to ethanol using yeast. almost no waste products and uses waste products.

Complete Relief from Yeast Infection in HOURS.

Safe, 100% Natural and Drug Free.
http://www.yeastinfectionaway.info natural cure yeast infection

I keep reading the title as, Polish Yeast Pearns for the Middle Ages.

I love Marmite, but it's one of those things you need to be given at a very young age in order to even be able to recognize as food. It's basically a tarry dark brown yeast extract.

>> ^Throbbin:

And I prefer the `Banana with a yeast infection` line over the tampon line.


Me too, didn't wanna spoil that one

I went home and downloa...errr...purchased that. My downlo...err...purchase was complete within 15 minutes - I`d never seen a torr...purchase move so quickly. Gonna watch it tonight.>> ^KnivesOut:

Love Sam Rockwell. Seen Gentlemen Broncos? If not, you should.


And I prefer the `Banana with a yeast infection` line over the tampon line.

@arvana
And yet...on the About Peepoople page, they say this
"The company was founded in 2006 and is based in Stockholm, Sweden."
And this, "The Peepoo toilet is scheduled to be available for delivery in the third trimester of 2010."

I'm not saying it's a scam, but based on the website, it's not actually in production, and several claims struck me as a bit overblown, and self-conflicting.

How much are they going to sell for? I could find no actual numbers about that, just claims that it would be affordable even to the poorest. If someone's making only a few dollars a month, these would have to run around 10 for a penny to be affordable. Somehow I don't see that price being sustainable.

How long does it take to sanitize? In one spot, it says 2-4 weeks, but another says 1-2 years. Probably just a case of a web designer not knowing the material, but still...it doesn't inspire my confidence. I assume that puncturing the bag in less time than whatever-it-takes would release the unsanitized contents into the wild...but didn't see anything addressing that (and to be fair, that's still a lesser problem than the current nothing-at-all solution).

And the sanitizing process is just to add urea? It seems odd that adding a few grams of what's already in urine is enough to sanitize it. I wouldn't call it wrong, but it just seems weird, like saying that adding more yeast to a salty bread would make it sweet.

What I'd like to see is a total cost comparison to a more infrastructure based solution. I suspect that septic tank based toilets would probably be cheaper and more effective over the long run.

Damned stupid quoting system!!!
I guess we'll just have to do without quotes.

If I had the key to my shackles, I'd gladly leave them behind. It's too bad I'm a slave to the whims of a VideoSifting hierarchy bent on hegemonic disenfranchisement of the minions. Trampled under foot, I am.

I smell cottage cheese.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
sugar toots,
you can't keep those cuffs on this long...
they're fun when the lights go down and stuff, but all day everyday, its just fucking weird.
and besides they're chaffing your wrists raw, which is gonna be bad news for you after you pull your fists out of my yeast-frothing vagina.

If I had the key to my shackles, I'd gladly leave them behind. It's too bad I'm a slave to the whims of a VideoSifting hierarchy bent on hegemonic disenfranchisement of the minions. Trampled under foot, I am.

I smell cottage cheese.

>> ^peggedbea:
sugar toots,
you can't keep those cuffs on this long...
they're fun when the lights go down and stuff, but all day everyday, its just fucking weird.
and besides they're chaffing your wrists raw, which is gonna be bad news for you after you pull your fists out of my yeast-frothing vagina.

sugar toots,
you can't keep those cuffs on this long...
they're fun when the lights go down and stuff, but all day everyday, its just fucking weird.
and besides they're chaffing your wrists raw, which is gonna be bad news for you after you pull your fists out of my yeast-frothing vagina.

What do you call an Ethiopian with a yeast infection? A Quarter-Pounder with Cheese.