That article is terrible. For a start, they have the whole flat earth thing completely backwards. It was a scientific consensus that eventually convinced the ruling (religion based) culture that the earth was round, because of the evidence.

Exactly what is happening now with climate change.

But I'll grant that they certainly have better climate change credentials than anyone here. That doesn't make them right. What would make them right would be publishing a peer reviewed paper with new models and predictions and falsifiable results.

Anyway, a few seconds googling sees them pretty much torn to shreds.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/02/20/mcnider-and-christy-defend-inertia/

Im' starting think that climate deniers genuinely don't understand the scientific method. It's simple; if there wasn't significant evidence that AGW was happening then it would be torn apart by other scientists. That's what peer review is for.

You can demonstrate the effect of carbon dioxide on climate as easily as dropping a ball from your hand? People know that balls will drop because the see it for themselves, not because a former physicist and his dog say so.

In actual fact, the earth has not warmed in nearly 20 years, and the climate models do not help to explain this. They are useless for explaining or predicting changes on the scale of decades, and it's crazy to expect them to somehow predict changes much further in the future.

Warmism, from the start, has been based on obfuscation, concealment of data, dodgy statistics, and overcomplicated computer models that add very little to insight into the real physical phenomena.

Remember the hockey stick? That went the way of Carl Sagan's nuclear winter, which ought to provide a cautionary tale for Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Your child's future will have many problems, one of them being depletion of the fossil fuel supplies that we have come to rely upon for sustenance. Climate will change, as it always has, and some of that change will be caused by CO2.
Climate science could be helpful; it's a pity that it has been distorted into a completely political exercise, and a shame for science generally, which stands to lose a great deal of public trust.

How can you be so sure without knowing the actual cups' measurements?

In any case, the cups are reported as 16 oz. and 20 oz., and they do fill the 16 oz. cup to the brim then transfer it to the 20 oz. cup and that is the amount of void space remaining at the top of the cup. Regardless of what it looks like, the difference must be 4 oz.

What are you suggesting as an alternative explanation? Is it magic?

Seems this is probably common practice. See also: *related=http://videosift.com/video/Ballpark-Beer-Scam-Oakland-Coliseum-Sham

I think I've watched this 20 times and it never stops being hilarious. THE ICE CREAM.

*quality
*promote

I was involved in MA for 20 years and at the end all I could say with confidence was that I could defend myself better than before I knew any MA.

@artician

Even if the models for the decline of empires are inexact, poorly sourced or even exaggerated, they are doing so to combat the overwhelming force of the status quo that feeds us a constant stream of comforting, mind-numbing bliss through mass media, mostly delivered though TV news, advertising and cleverly veiled in the actual entertainment that the audience enjoys.

It's hard to mount a comeback against a presupposed cultural truth supported by any form of economic interest. The tobacco industry, for example, mounted powerful misinformation and doubt as scientific evidence slowly leaked out that smoking was harmful. People just don't want to hear that the way they live and what they "know" to be true is going to change and that personal choice is going to have to be limited to some extent.

The same is true for global warming, deforestation, species extinction, pollution, etc., etc. You can resist the "ineffectual mumblings" of Hitchens, Chomsky and the like, but you do so to at your own peril. People like you are the do-do bird in this scenario. People like you are the 2 pack-a-day smoker who thinks they've been smoking for 20 years and feeling fine so why quit now. "Screw the scientists, they're all out to make themselves rich so they concoct these cackamamy experiments to 'prove' they need more research funding." Okay, it's your right to dismiss the advice of people smarter than you.

This video follows the same vein as Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist series (which I suggest you watch or rewatch for shits and giggles.) The idea of consumption tax seems a lot easier for our system to adopt than Joseph's idea of a "Resource-Based Economy." It just sounds more fair that those consuming resources pay back into the system and less airy-fairy than some socialist "to-each as to his need" idea. And let's face it, it's right on a social level. It's just too hard to get there based on our current economic and political structure.

Our wasteful way of life is just unsustainable. I don't think anyone can deny that the ponzi scheme of FIAT money is eventually going to collapse because the balance of wealth is way out of whack AND ONLY GETTING WORSE. And the USA is at the top, and yet owes trillions in funny money that they can only pay back if they stop building missiles and tanks. But I think we all know that when the shit hits the fan, we're going to want to get behind those tanks to ride out the storm of resistance from the 99%. Not the privileged 99% in the west, the 99% of destitute, impoverished poor that build the toys, sew and clothes, glue the plastic Walmart crap, and GROW THE FOOD that we want.to have cheap. We're doing this all on the backs of the "free slaves" in undeveloped countries: Columbia, Bangladesh and on and on.

Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.

I grew up a couple of miles away from here, it should be noted that this tent city has been well established for well over 20 years and is not a new phenomenon of recession.

I've worked retail during my 20's, and some companies/stores are similar to this. Although in my experience the group was never really all that motivated or even happy to be there.

Only retail job I had that treated it's employees like adults was at the Dell Kiosks, they paid well and didn't have us attend terrible meetings like this one.

To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

I'd like to know more about this.
Was that Spielberg? Or a look-a-like?
Was it cut between different sources (guy interviewing recorded interviewee in response to some DVD extra dialog from the director)?

RE: "All the people I met at Dreamworks were, and still are, AWESOME!"
-> It is rarely the people that work at a company, rather than the people who manage the company, that are absolute shitheads.

So, if the interviewee knows Spielberg and the CEO of DWS, I could see it being a case of attempted pro-nepotism, sure. That shouldn't get a ban for life, especially since the video seems to be tongue in cheek.

Even if he paid these people to say these lines without their knowledge of the use... Not really a ban for life. Maybe 20% ingenuity and 80% stupidity on the guys part.

Regardless of all of the above, it takes imagination, creativity and openly thinking outside of the usual formula to create something like this as an introductory video for application to a specific company. That kind of outside thinking and (most importantly), the ability to conceive, produce and complete such a project, is exactly the kind of people companies, any company should be looking for.

But that's all pending on the full story, and based on what I see here. If he held Spielberg in a small storage unit at gunpoint and forced him to say these lines: definitely a ban for life from the organization.

Also: the Jurassic Park theme is shit.

My personal 5-yr-plan for expatriation began yesterday. If I have to live in any country, I have 3 criteria:

Must be an active volcano within 20 miles and surrounded by ocean
Must be able to dive for shellfish and angle for salt-water fishes from the shore
Tourism economy with the only Americans there visitors or fellow expatriates with the bulk of tourists coming from Europe and other.

I'm shooting for the south-eastern Windward isles, where I can with an EU passport, travel freely to Cuba. Not to mention Jamaica and South America.

It's not so much the fucked government, they're fucked everywhere. It's all about quality of life-Good, fresh, UNTAINTED food, great music, and NO FUCKING AMERICANS!

I used to love my country before the machine started breeding idiots, now all that's left here are ineffectual robots who talk a lot, saying nothing and doing less. As far as I'm concerned, y'all can have this motherfucker....Oh, and I'm gonna join the Freemasons when I get there as well, 'cause Freemasonry KICKS ASS!

That is one way to say good-bye to your 20's and hello's to your 30's!

I grew up on a small family farm. I went off to university and came home expecting to talk about how horrific Monsanto had been to everyone and get the first hand stories of how bad it was. Instead, every last farmer in the entire area, and these are all single family farms, stated as a matter of course that Monsanto's GMO crops made them more money, and overwhelmingly had been chosen by farmers over previous still available alternatives because it reduced their costs and increased their yields.

So I've since gone back and looked more closely at the picture, and Monsanto is still a nasty beast of a mega-corp. It's GMO crops though have been used and grown here in North America almost exclusively(and by free choice) for 20+ years, and our people aren't dead from horrific diseases yet. Go search google scholar for research on the health impacts of GMO crops and see how terrifically over stated any fears seem to be.

At the very least go educate yourself more before getting indignant when your called out for blaming health care costs and gasoline engine wear on Monsanto...

I'm inclined to fall in the middle here.
Smoked a pack a day for 20 years and got lung cancer? That's a victim that took a risk and lost. BUT...
It's impossible to eliminate cancer risk entirely. Cancer is semi-random with an off-on trigger. Risk is cumulative, and while incidence can be correlated with risk across populations, incidence is not directly correlated with risk for a given individual. Some people will tan for years and never experience the specific set of mutations and biologic failsafe failures that results in melanoma, while others will trigger that specific set of conditions rapidly, even when the starting biologic conditions\predispositions are the same.
So, yes, I believe some people "get credit" for their cancer (or other illnesses) because of their behaviors, but others are just unlucky.
Even setting aside the randomness of incidence, we're constantly bombarded with a significant cancer risk factor in the form of ionizing radiation, and not just from avoidable sources like deciding to live in a brick house or eating bananas.
I also disagree with the idea that more money wouldn't help eliminate (contrast with "cure") cancer, because many organizations funding cancer research are looking at identifying risk factors, which leads to opportunities for educating populations about avoiding those risk factors. Cervical cancer can be caused by HPV? Get your kids vaccinated, don't have unprotected sex, etc. Lung cancer can be caused by smoking? Stop smoking! It isn't just about finding a magic medication to reverse cellular mutations or target mutated cells, although that would be fantastic.

I can answer that easily, the vast majority of Australians including myself think that every word the NRA writes about Australia is a lie. Their videos take very old information out of context, and spin it into a story about another Australia and not the one we know and live in. Certainly there are some Aussies who like guns and look enviously at the U.S., and it therefore wouldn't be hard to fine one or two (out of 24 million) who will stand up and say "they took our guns!!!", but the majority are happy enough with the current laws... which is not to say they are perfect, because they aren't... they were drafted by clowns and have some really strange aspects (see @harlequinn's comment re competition pistol shooters for instance).

I don't think our legislation would suit the U.S. without some changes anyway, even apart from the dumb bits, it took into account the types of weapons common here and generally allowed people to own those types of weapon if they demonstrated a genuine need... so the list of allowed weapons would be very different in the U.S. than here. It was really just aligning all the state laws into one uniform national law rather than a lot of new controls (another point willfully ignored in the NRA articles btw, which assume a single date when everybody's guns were confiscated... wtf???).

The good part of our law is the idea that you don't just leave firearms lying around: only own them if you need them, keep them secured, if you don't need them any longer get rid of them.

Not that it really affects me either way, but it does seem to me that most of the most obvious firearms reforms in the U.S. are just reversing some things that the NRA lobbying has done over the past 20 years, and closing a few loopholes in current laws, rather than copying the Australian legislation to the letter.