Legalization of pot, in the US, removes income for large "correctional institutions " and makes police have to work harder to stop criminals instead of taking the ounce-possession shortcut.

Not making an argument, just pointing out the biggest hurdles.

I got a song for Uwe to live by:

Truly, fuck the world,
for all it's worth,
every inch of planet Earth,
fuck myself,
don't leave me out,
but don't get involved,
don't corner me

Inside, ulcer,
unjust bastards,
file out face first
Meet the lies and see what you are

It's forcing you down, and it's grinding against you
Let the war nerve break

For every fucking second the pathetic media pisses on me and
judges what I am in one paragraph

- Look here -

FUCK YOU AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL

Expect the worst,
you bleeding heart,
but kill me first
before it starts,
yes my cock is getting hard,
we are born different after all

Invite mayhem,
produce weapons,
shoot out,
burn down
No CNN or media now

All the money in the fucking world couldn't buy me one second of trust
or one ounce of faith in anything you're about
Fuck you all

Nothing is worth the sleep that I've lost
Apologies unacceptable now
A blistered revenge awaits in me
This is fucking loveless

Hate
Hate mail is not read, in jail instead
Hate

The Lord knows,
there's worse
Ignore, this curse
HATE

Apparently Doctors don't understand them much either. My son ounce suffered through an attack that lasted about 48 hours. At the end of the first 24 hours, he was experiencing enough pain that we took him to the ER. Their response was that while they understand physically what is happening when we have hiccups..they don't really understand what causes them or how to stop them. I was like WTF year is this?

Just like laws of thermodynamics, they still hold even thou at the time, they didn't know exactly how it works... But for her, when a theory is first initiated, it has to have all the evidence before even an ounce of it can be stated as a fact. This is due to religions declaring that they have the ultimate truth, they are infallible, perfect. So if there is 9999 pieces of evidence that all point to one direction, one evidence is enough to denounce it.. You can't use the same logic against her as any mismatches that creationism has with reality is the work of god and as humans can not understand his intentions, you can't disprove it.

Would he say the same thing on a busy street to a man waking by with no interest in him?

If the answer is 'YES' then a) I can't believe he's not hoarse given the number of people one passes in a given day in NYC and b)it's not an example of gender-specific inappropriateness... but c) it's still anti-social because the body language (which men read all the time) clearly indicates a lack of interest in being stopped. These are the streets of a subdivision or Iowa City down town (don't get me wrong, I love Iowa City). Most people in New York to not greet random strangers in the street.

The exception to this is people whose jobs require approaching strangers - you know beggars, street vendors, promoters, and those guys who solicit for charity. Please notice that no one who might fall into those categories were included in the video, despite the fact that in NYC she definitely walked past all 3.

If the answer is 'NO' (IE he didn't 'greet' the disinterested camera man who walked by first but did 'greet' the disinterested woman) then the comment is both anti-social AND gender targeted. He's targeting a woman he doesn't know, when every ounce of her body language is saying that she doesn't want to be bothered. That's not friendly, that's more likely a attempt (conscious or subconscious) to exercise power over the woman walking by.

“It was recently brought to our attention that the amount of beer that fits in our large (20-oz) cups also fits in our regular (16-oz) cups. The differentiation in the size of the two cups is too small. To correct that problem, we’re purchasing new cups for the large beers that will hold 24 ounces, instead of 20, for the remainder of this season." Eric Trapp, the president of the Idaho Steelheads and CenturyLink Arena wrote on the team's Facebook page.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/10/3072815/centurylink-o-change-beer-cups.html

First of all how does the same amount of liquid fill a 16 oz cup and a 20 oz cup (although the 20 oz cup isn't filled to the rim as the 16 oz is, sure doesn't seem like a 4 oz difference). Even the new 24 oz cups will be a rip off. The equal value size to a four dollar 16 oz beer would be a seven dollar 28 oz cup. What a scam.

unfortunately, not an ounce of humor

• 1 1/4 ounces Pimm’s Gin No. 1 Cup
• 3 ounces lemonade
• 7UP
• Cucumber slice

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

Someone at work brought these chocolate chip cookies in today. I asked her to email me the recipe since they were really good. So here you go...

Chocolate Chip Cookies
(makes 6 dozen cookies)

4 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
2 teaspoons baking soda
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 cups butter, softened
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 1/2 cups packed brown sugar
1/2 cup white sugar
2 (3.4 ounce) packages instant vanilla pudding mix
4 eggs
2 tablespoons vanilla extract
4 cups semisweet chocolate chips
2 cups chopped walnuts (optional)

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Sift together the flour, baking soda, baking powder and salt, then set aside.

2. In a large bowl, cream together the butter, brown sugar, and white sugar. Beat in the instant pudding mix powder until blended. Stir in the eggs and vanilla. Blend in the flour mixture. Finally, stir in the chocolate chips and nuts. Drop cookies by rounded spoonfuls onto ungreased cookie sheets covered in parchment paper. Refrigerate dough between batches so the dough doesn't become too soft before baking.

3. Bake for approximately 10 to 12 minutes in the preheated oven. Could be more or less depending on your oven. Edges should be golden brown.

my god @lantern53,
did you just try to school everyone on consensus vs science?
and you did this after using an ice age analogy?
and not with an ounce of irony?

the ignorance on display is so massive that i am embarrassed for you my man.

the consensus is ON the science!
the only argument is what % is man-made.
thats it.

I've found, that "for me," it depends on what I am doing which determines the system I'm using.
Distance: Kilometers makes the most sense.
Temperature: Celsius makes way more sense
Measurements around the house and building: Inches and feet are the standard.
Design: Points and Picas are the most useful
Computer: Pixels (unles the output is print, then back to Points)
Weight: Pounds/ounces
Volume: Liters and Milliliters

Upvote for the 40 ounce of malt liquor and weed.

I loved this interview and I respect her with every ounce of respect I have. We need people with hearts like this in this world. However, This only reaffirmes my belief in fighting the Taliban in whatever means it takes to protect yourself. I would want me or my wife of my mother to have a means to protect themselves without relying on faith and idealist philosophies. I hope it works for her but I have to think it would not end well if she employed the tactics she espouses. I love her though. She is wonderful and I wish her the best of luck. In this arena, and this area of the world...I feel it will take a massive upswell of individuals deciding that fighting back in a very physical and literal sense is the only answer.

I thought you might be overestimating the force of a thrown baseball as compared to the steel ball bearing, so I tried to do some research and run numbers to compare.

Some googling says a baseball should weigh 5-5.25 ounces (about 1/3 of a pound).

Another page and some quick calculations that I might have screwed up[ (4*pi*.5*.5*.5)/3*.283 ] say that the ball bearing might weigh about .15 pounds -- a bit under half of the baseball.

On the other hand, the fastest pitch ever recorded in MLB (by Nolan Ryan) was 108.1 MPH or 158.5 feet per second. Harder to find data on "muzzle" velocity of a slingshot, but this page suggests that some people claim some slingshot projectiles can travel at 300 feet per second, but he argues that 180 to 200 fps is probably a more realistic high end for a .50 caliber lead ball (which would probably/possibly? be heavier than the 1" steel ball since lead is more dense). Anyway, there is at the very least a slight advantage to the slingshot here as compared to the fastest pitch ever recorded in MLB. Considering the draw length and pull strength of the slingshot in the video, I'd say it is probably actually much faster than the conservative 180-200 fps number from that page.

So then you've got @cosmovitelli 's formula (mass times velocity squared). The mass of the baseball is probably double that of the steel ball, but the velocity is probably 25-90% faster (or even more) and then squared. That probably overcomes the disadvantage in mass and then some.

Then again, this is all fairly academic as you suggested because the lethality of the bullets/projectiles is dependent on them being small enough to puncture, tear flesh, break/shatter bones, etc. Apply that kinetic energy to a very small impact site. However, in spite of its large size, I bet that steel ball could do a lot of damage given its kinetic energy -- which is what I would take away from their claims of it "hitting harder". I wouldn't want to stand in front of a Nolan Ryan fastball either, but given the choice between that and the slung steel ball... I'd take the plunk and have somebody take my base for me.