The hilarious part is that c-note is probably right about the cops. But he was being a total ass about it.

Alan Alda is great and I'm definitely going to watch this show.

But if you think that racism is only what you do, not what you say, I have a simple experiment for you.

Find a black/asian/jewish/hispanic person and do something nice for them. Help them change a tyre or carry their groceries. When they say thanks, reply "no problem, <insert ethnic slur of choice>", and watch them realise how not-racist you're being!

All fence-riding does is offer your ass more splinters-I'm all for grass-roots disobedience-Imagine the power people would realize they wield with the simple experiment of an entire town, city, or state spending an entire day sitting in their lawn chairs using no gas, electricity, or monopoly money?
The real power lies with the individual's ability to short-circuit their robotic impulses to bend over and take it up the ass

America could be transformed overnight if ineffectual peeps put the slightest amount of foot-to-ass -Otherwise, we get the brown-shirts again and unfortunately, that scenario appears inevitable. Media and her pundits are a poisonous elixir of henbane and dogshit and to continue to derive your world view from the available sources is simply retarded.

The empire has no clothes and holds very few cards, simply stop listening to their bullshit and watch them scatter like cockroaches....

Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.
>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.
Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.
UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.


You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)

If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.

Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.

UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That sounds like a book I want to read - and yeah - totally validates what I was trying to say above.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@berticus turned me on to a great book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational, which is about behavioral economics. Ariely's research comes to the conclusion that we behave differently based on whether we view a situation as a business or social interaction. Business transactions are governed by greed and self interest; social interactions are governed by empathy and compassion. It's not a political book, per se, but it does seem to explain a lot about the psychology behind the political divide.
In one of the more simple experiments in the book, he sets out a table of chocolates at MIT with a sign that says free chocolates. Because money is not involved, the students operate under social norms and only take one or two chocolates, leaving plenty of free chocolates for other students. When the experiment is repeated with a 1 cent price tag attached to the chocolate, the students operate under market norms and are much more greedy.
It's a fun and interesting read that pretty much makes the same point you make above.... but with science. Worth a look.
(on a side note, I finally have internet at the place I'm staying! YAY! I've gone without for over a month. I've also started playing Minecraft which is strangely addictive for a game about hitting pixelated blocks with an Axe.)

@berticus turned me on to a great book by Dan Ariely called Predictably Irrational, which is about behavioral economics. Ariely's research comes to the conclusion that we behave differently based on whether we view a situation as a business or social interaction. Business transactions are governed by greed and self interest; social interactions are governed by empathy and compassion. It's not a political book, per se, but it does seem to explain a lot about the psychology behind the political divide.

In one of the more simple experiments in the book, he sets out a table of chocolates at MIT with a sign that says free chocolates. Because money is not involved, the students operate under social norms and only take one or two chocolates, leaving plenty of free chocolates for other students. When the experiment is repeated with a 1 cent price tag attached to the chocolate, the students operate under market norms and are much more greedy.

It's a fun and interesting read that pretty much makes the same point you make above.... but with science. Worth a look.

(on a side note, I finally have internet at the place I'm staying! YAY! I've gone without for over a month. I've also started playing Minecraft which is strangely addictive for a game about hitting pixelated blocks with an Axe.)

nice simple experiment... must be some small container which could take the pressure...