its really not that simple.

Can roundup cause cancer? Well, I wouldn't recommend drinking it.

WILL it cause cancer? Eh, not really.

His lady needs to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk".
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-cause-cancer-not-controversy-explained/

And bacon doesn't cause cancer either.

It would be so easy in stop and go traffic for a rubbernecker to do just that.

Now that you say that, i wonder if he's breaking the law as some kind of distraction which is hazardous to other drivers.

It should be able to recognize the flashing hazard lights on a vehicle in the same lane and tell the driver to take control. I think a lot of the edge-case programming of these driving computers will be wait till it screws up and fix it so it won't do the same thing again.

Woah, woah, you're way overstating it. The tech is nowhere near ready for full hands-off driving in non-ideal driving scenarios. For basic navigation Google relies on maps and GPS, but the crux of autonomous navigation is machine learning algorithms. Through many hours of data logged driving, the algorithm will associate more and more accurately certain sensor inputs to certain hazards via equation selection and coefficients. The assumption is that at some point the algorithm would be able to accurately and reliably identify and react to pedestrians, pot holes, construction areas, temporary traffic lights police stops among an almost endless litany of possible hazards.

They're nowhere near there though and there's simply no guarantee that it will ever be sufficiently reliable to be truly hands-off. As mentioned, the algorithm is just an equation with certain coefficients. Our brains don't work that way when we drive. An algorithm may never have the necessary complexity or flexibility to capture the possibility of novel and unexpected events in all driving scenarios. The numbers Google quotes on reliability from its test driving are on well mapped, simple to navigate roads like highways with few of these types of challenges but real life is not like that. In practice, the algorithm may be safer than humans for something like 99% of scenarios (which I agree could in itself make driving safer) but those exceptional 1% of scenarios that our brains are uniquely able to process will still require us to be ready to take over.

As for Tesla, all it has is basically auto-cruise, auto-steer and lane changing on request. The first two is just the car keeping in lane based on lane marker input from sensors, and slowing down & speeding up based on the car follow length you give it. The most advanced part of it is the changing lanes if you indicate it to, which will effectively avoid other cars and merge. It doesn't navigate, it's basically just for highways, and even on those it won't make your exit for you (and apparently will sometimes dive into exits you didn't want based on lane marker confusion from what I've read). So basically this is either staged or this guy is an idiot.

Blowing smoke rings is the main reason I wanted to smoke as a kid. Unfortunately I never liked the taste and was too aware of the health hazards to get good like this guy.

Maybe I'll take it up when I'm in my 50's.

Technically, a 'redneck' is any person who works outside and gets sunburnt on their neck...but it is clearly most often associated with rural farming southerners.
The American Cancer Society had a great campaign for a while in the south with a picture of a man from behind with a sunburnt neck and cowboy hat and a caption "rednecks can be hazardous to your health".

This could use some better explanation, and some footage of the first 2 tries where nothing happened. What was different the 3rd time?

Just from observation I'll hazard a guess, it seemed the salt may have trapped some water inside the blob which flashed to steam, causing a small explosion and dispersing the molten salt into the water and super heating a large area of water to steam in an instant, causing the large explosion.

That may be totally wrong, it's just a guess, but something extremely hot causing water to 'explode' is hardly "inexplicable".

Hmm, interesting. My Mom doesn't drink very often, but when she does she gets pretty close to beet red -- more intense than any of the people in the video. I don't think that hers is tied to any particular sort of alcohol; I've seen it happen with beer, wines, and cocktails.

Mine is sporadic, and less intense than any of the people in the video. Sporadic enough and I don't drink often enough to have a feeling for whether or not it might be associated with any particular sort of alcohol. So if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that my Mom's reaction is more likely to be asian flush than mine; but on the other hand since both of our reactions are probably genetically related (due to our shared genes), maybe neither of them is asian flush. I dunno.

Some quick googling definitely suggests that caucasians can have "asian flush" also, just at proportionally lower rates. I don't lose any sleep over it (don't drink often enough), but it is still interesting.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

They must have. I can't believe that accessible flat roofs in Gran Canaria, or anywhere else, could be so miraculously clear of hazardous junk when in their natural state.

I'd hazard that it doesn't make much difference how thick the sword is as long as it has a reasonable edge angle made of something harder than the bullet. I'd contest that Katanas aren't good for cutting (weight of blade + curve), but yeah, the whole mythos about them being extraordinarily more sharp than other swords is bullshit. I've read that the reason for blending high-carbon steel with softer steel was more a matter of scarcity of high-carbon steel than deliberate design.

I would hazard a guess that she's not actually a student in this class (possibly not even at the school), but is, at best, 'auditing' the class, and more likely just sitting in on a lecture that's open to all students (and maybe the public) because he's got all those replica skulls there as a presentation, which makes this look like it's not a normal class presentation. I sat in on a number of 'classes' like this when I was 12-13, and even was allowed (indeed encouraged) to participate in the discussions...but I knew more about science than this woman did even at that age, so it's not as outrageous as it sounds.

If I'm wrong, and that is really the level of education required to be a science student at Berkeley these days, we are totally screwed as a nation and the only smart move left is to move to New Zealand. Actually, that's a good move no matter what!

Okay, so, taking off the mask while in the pool sounds like a fire hazard?

I can't defend aggressive police that should know the laws clearly so they can uphold them properly. It's hard to picture having that level of surefire arrogance with such a sorry lack of knowledge about basic rights.

But that doesn't mean that returning the harassment, which we do regularly see in videos on here, is a good way to address the underlying issue and effect change. It's hard to have any effective teachable moment in an exchange like this and I'd say impossible to touch on the actual endemic issue behind it.
I would never claim to know how where to start with such a large scale problem, but I would hazard that it would be possible to expend the same energy in ways that might contribute.