You understand that people react to DMT differently, right? You understand that some people have horrifying trips on DMT, so horrifying they commit suicide while on it, often enough that it is a drug that requires a 'sitter' to take with any small amount of safety. You do understand that some people have flashbacks of this debilitating horrifying experience at random times in the future, destroying the possibility of a normal life, right?
Your attempts to cajole others into trying a quite dangerous drug with NO mention of the dangers is irresponsible in the extreme.
My own drug experience is wide and varied, and I have had un-named drugs that did nearly exactly what others (poorly) describe their DMT trips as doing. It was not pleasant or useful in my life, and was given to me by those that acted exactly as you do...hyper exaggerating the positive effects, and completely ignoring the drawbacks and possible permanent pitfalls.

I hope they'll include some flashbacks telling the origin story of the original Ant-Man. This would enable them to tell Hank Pym's origin story in flashbacks while simultaneously moving forward with the possibly more relatable (to the audience) newer version of the superhero.

Also, showing a highly intelligent scientist building a suit that enables him to become a superhero could be too reminiscent of the Iron Man origin story. A superhero introducing his successor to the job is something the Marvel films haven't done so far.

Adrenaline has a very strong impact on memory storage. If you have it surging through your veins during memory creation, those memories become extremely easy to access, and far clearer than otherwise mundane events in your life. This is part of the reason that war vets have such a hard time with PTSD and flashbacks.

I dont doubt this guys words...he would have had to have gone over this story a hundred times to his superiors and with the grand jury case, of course it is rehearsed...what do you want? To hear him speaking to someone directly after the incident?

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

I'm having a flashback to my Karate classes.



Both of them.

When that... kid, really, says, "Motivate!" at 2:37, I swear I had flashbacks. I haven't heard that battle cry in over a decade...

This is really pretty horrifying, and gave me flashbacks to early school where the teacher would try to make you repeat things like this, as if saying it two words at a time makes it stick. Hey here's an idea how about giving me credit for being able to remember more than two words at a time? No, we have to design the teaching method towards the stupidest people in the room, who are not going to benefit from education anyways, rendering the entire system largely pointless? OK.

Uhoh ... FLASHBACK!

I just had a freaky Ace Combat 5 flashback. That's the Rafale right?

My gut is telling me this is going to be awful. We saw the best bit. The rest is going to be cloying flashbacks and weepy radio conversations with the family at ground control.

Clooney's character is going to sacrifice himself at the end so Bullock's character can get back to her kid (who probably has some disability or chronic illness).

If found Man of Steel to be a good action movie but a bad Superman movie. The Superman in it, just didn't present as heroic to me.

All the flashbacks and early years stuff was fantastic, though. I liked the Lois Lane character throughout, but her character really petered out at the end.

*quality flashback

Crazy, baby! Thanks for the flashback....

(Used to do rock covers onna Sitar I bought in the north bay area-First arrangement I worked out was The Who's, "See For Miles.")

The U.S. and Japan are joined at the cultural hip in a lotta ways-Rock & Roll, Jazz, Harley Davidsons, tube amplifiers.....and GREAT BIG TITTIES!!

I'm getting Just Cause 2 flashbacks.

The yt description explains it a bit:

Seiji is tormented by horrible tsunami-flashback dreams, but one night he wakes up and his beloved grandfather has appeared. With a strum of his grandfather's guitar, Seiji is transported to a colorful, slightly strange, psychedelic world and finally manages to have a good dream.

Artwork by UrumaDelvi
Music by David Byrne and Ryuichi Sakamoto

Zapuni brings together Japanese artist with world renowned musicians to create works for charity.

Learn more at http://zapuni.com

Buy Psychedelic Afternoon music track from iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/psychelic-afternoon-single/id611208152

Our first project has produced two anime-music videos created - one by UrumaDelvi with David Byrne and the other by Yutaka Yamamoto with Sigur Ros. Our goal is to raise money for charity programs like School Music Revival using the videos.