For about 10 years now i've had severe stomach problems, to the point of sometimes being all but housebound. At some point in my attempts to try and find some resolution, i came across the idea of a gut flora transplant.

I never did it because you've got to find someone healthy with a great diet and i suppose bowel regularity, which is difficult in itself because those people are rare and the subject is embarrassing.

But if you're crippled with stomach aches, woken up 7 times a night going to the toilet (and then not even doing anything), then putting someone else's shit into your own bum is nothing. As Terry Pratchett once said about Alzheimer's - it's a desperate situation, and he'd eat the rotting arsehole out of a dead mole if it meant a fighting chance.

For anyone interested, i stopped eating gluten for a while and had minor improvement. When i ate gluten, i'd get feverish and flu-like, joint pain, headaches, sweats and excruciating stomach pain. I figured it was coeliac disease and hoped i would fully recover before long. I didn't, but 2 weeks ago i also cut potato (nightshade vegetable) from my diet and i have been stomach ache free since (that is, 75%+ of the time my stomach feels painless). Apparently lectins are problematic.

If anyone has ever had severe pain for a very long time, they'll know the utter relief and joy of being pain free. It's hard to describe, but for a few days to a week, it's a euphoric feeling.

Imagine saying this but not making a connection between violent societies and access to machines designed for killing.

"In Japan, there are less guns. Japan has less gun violence."
-- Yes but you can't make that comparison because the US is more violent.

???

Looks like he filmed it in the same room as ISIS film those "we hate the west" videos.

This is not necessarily on topic, but good grief i never realised pictures of someone's face could look so different. The bit at 1:37 with the woman's face was a revelation! I didn't know that happened, and it kind of explains some pictures i've accidentally taken with forward facing cameras (and been horrified by). I always thought i must have good/bad days and look terrible sometimes, but that explains a lot.

In Thailand i had a picture taken on a tree-platform-zipline 80 feet in the air, sweaty, red, disheveled and sleepless... and it's the best picture i've ever seen of me, and my skin looked uniform and nice, not red and damp as it did in a mirror there. Sorry for off-topic, but how the feck does that work? It wasn't airbrushed or anything, they had very little time for processing. I feel like 50% of my mystery has been answered in that one moment of the video!

In the past i have found microdoses of magic mushrooms to be better for depression than any medical prescription i've ever used.
No noticeable side effects if you get the dosage right. And I no longer use anti depressants.

The scariest thing to me is when people like you normalise the idea that a cop can be "set off". The way you just casually mention it like "Oh yeah, and of course if you piss one off well that's your own fault." And that's beside from anything that happened in the video - you throw up a defence for all other cases! In classic fashion, you insinuate that the blame lies with the victim, without actually saying it outright; to give yourself wiggle room on the retreat.

The fact that you think a look or tone of voice is enough to do so is only horrifying once one realises that the cop has ultimate authority in deciding whether your voice is acceptable to them, or your eyes opened wide enough (but not too wide as to glare).

God forbid any of my american friends get misinterpreted by a cop, because according to some, that's grounds for immediate execution or at least punishment under law.

This philosophy IS the problem.

Damn... I've been hearing snippets of that song everywhere and wondering how an old funky synth song got popular again. Turns out i was wrong for the right reasons.

Great video, great explanation technique.

If we created a brain from a map (even a perfect one), put it in an android and set it going, how would we know that it would behave the same way as the person who was mapped? I'm not sure there is a way to really know. Is it alive when it's good enough to trick someone? Is it alive when it's smart enough to turn to you and say, "If you switch me off, will i die?" Is it fair to "kill" that one but not the ever-so-slightly less advanced one who didn't ask the same question?!

Let's say we create a simulation of someone's brain and run a particular scenario by it. Could we predict possible outcomes and their probabilities? That's kinda close to minority report. If our justice system is right 95% of the time but the brain simulation was right 98% of the time, less people would be wrongfully judged so we should act on thought-crime.

Sequentially we just saw; an average member of the public certain that a bill would stay, followed by someone who works in media who said that she had utmost faith in the bill staying.

Am i Lord Stupid of Stupidville for thinking that there might be a connection there which should make sirens and alarm bells go off in our brains?

With respect to the senior correspondent at Vox, how in the name of Zeus' arsehole did someone so naive get to be in that position?

If she was so sure and casual about it, then probably the articles and/or people that she oversaw would have been just as flippant in their reporting, which in turn gave the reader the impression they didn't have to be concerned with keeping what they needed.

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

I was off school on the few days they covered long division, 15 years ago or so, and never bothered to learn it. To this day I never had a clue how to do it... but i don't think i'll ever forget divide, multiply and subtract, bring it on down and bring it on back.

I think the excess bureaucracy in teaching these days takes away from teachers being able to tailor and refine their methods to deliver things in a memorable way.

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

My dad builds cars and he has a million and one different things that you could possibly want, but he doesn't have any of that shit.

Vegan shows lack of tolerance for other person's opinion.

More at 11.

When someone says something like "we're exploiting parallel universes", what they mean is that one of the many theories that can be used to describe quantum behaviour such as entanglement is to do with parallel universes.

That doesn't mean there aren't other theories, it doesn't mean there are parallel universes, it's just one of the few ways we can make it make sense is if it exists and carries information in a dimension that is not tangible to us.

When Archimedes invented his screw, using gravity to drive water uphill, he could have said that he's using an invisible multi-dimensional goblin to move the water; well that's one theory and its irrefutable until Newton makes an appearance. And even then you can still say "yeah but what we know of gravity is still a multidimensional goblin."

Having said that, it has as much likelihood of being correct as any other theory in its infancy.