Well according to the clip of Stallone's arm wrestling show, apparently drinking automobile oil before a match does NOT make you stronger or better at it (much like Popeye and a can of spinach). BUT, it does seem to show that it has the ability to induce a superpower allowing a seemingly normal person to become schizophrenic...

BTW, I said superpower rather than mental illness, because from the schizophrenic individual's perspective he is surely battling Hell's most dangerous beasts, demons, and devils. Merely with the power of his arm wrestling techniques backed up by the miniature fission based nuclear reactor in his gut. It also leaves him in a perpetual manic state, where much like the Lego Movie, "Everything Is Awesome"...

I imagine that he may upgrade to a mixture of anti-freeze and power steering fluids; absolutely logical.

/insanity
//off-topic

I can't believe I watched the whole thing.

Can't help wondering: If he's so freaking fast, why was he so far behind to start with? He made it seem so easy to pass all those other automobiles.

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

I feel like Soylent might be one of those unpopular ideas like the automobile - (why would you want to get in one of those infernal, noisy contraptions) - that might have a bright future - mainly because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

Protecting and serving by automobile has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

If I saw someone continuously throwing themselves at automobiles I would get a couple of the guys together to pin him on ground and await authorities. How do you just stand around watching that shit happen?

Poppet valve problem. Get a new brake booster.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/47836/Vacuum-assisted-power-brake-for-an-automobile

My point is, if the cars are cutting around the truck, it's "slower traffic" and "slower traffic must keep right" is the law. I understand that following that law would make it near impossible for trucks to ever leave the slow lane. That doesn't change the fact that it IS the law, even if most people ignore it.
Where I am, if you have the space when you START the lane change, and get hit from behind, unless you are moving slower than the flow of traffic or slam on your brakes, the one behind is ALWAYS at fault, because they have the best opportunity to see and avoid the collision. If they decide to cause a collision because they think they have the right of way, it's their fault, even if they DID have the right of way. I think that's what happened here, he insisted on 'right of way' and caused an accident. Truck's fault.
I don't disagree the car made a poor decision, one people make a thousand times a day without accident though.

What it seems to me is that, 3/4 of the way into the lane change the car sees the semi truck has pushed it's way up into the slot it was moving into, and panics. Until then she might have thought it was changing lanes to the third lane that doesn't exist, if she saw it coming up at all. The right thing for her to do right then would be hit the brakes and move back and right, but faced with what seemed a semi truck on both door handles, planes trains and automobiles style, I might panic too. By the time she saw the problem, there was an unavoidable truck on both sides, no where to go except where she had been going and hope the trucker acts like a human being and brakes to lets her in...he doesn't.

At the 10 second mark, note that the truck, car, and semi truck are all going the same speed, not closing. At the 13 second mark, the trucker says 'what the hell? You are not going to pass me' and starts to accelerate. (EDIT: listening closely, that might have been part of the story he was telling the guy on the phone). At the 15 second mark, you can see the car start it's lane change with enough room (granted not much, but a car length ahead and behind) and the truck still not closing the gap, but you hear the throttle open up to full. At 19 seconds you can see the entire 1/2 side of the car in the lane in front of the truck, with the truck's throttle pushed to wide open and the truck now closing the gap fast. At 20 seconds the truck passes the car and drives on the shoulder, and there is now less than 1 car length between it and the first car. At 23 seconds the truck moves back to the right (slightly, watch the hood ornament) and at 24 the car panics and turns into the semi truck to try to avoid the sandwich.

To me, that means the truck knew she was coming, saw her change lanes, and just floored it around and then into her. When he realized she hadn't backed off, it was too late. He never backed off.

Being on the phone may end up being the determining legal factor, no matter what professional accident investigators say about the bad driving of both parties.

Ok, wait.
Some people are dumb is a lazy statement.

Everyone has different interests. These questions had nothing to do with IQ.
They were fact based. We all take an interest in what determines the way we live, what interests us and what gets our brains excited. The information we use daily determines our personal dichotomy of words and knowledge that we maintain in our everyday lives.

Throwing boring political questions on people that "obviously" don't have any use for this knowledge is just smear.

They could have the same results standing on Wall-Street asking Science questions, or in a Church questioning ministers about Automobile Mechanics.
They purposely picked the group of people that would know the least on these topics and and asked them questions just so they could laugh at them.

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.

It's a Holden UTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_%28vehicle%29
The automobile equivalent of a platypus.

Just more lobbying BS from the automobile industry, making public roads exclusive to cars and criminalising jay walking.
I'm not f*ing joking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

Honestly. Seriously... honestly... what is a greater danger to the average Israeli? Rockets... or a car accident. How many Israelis died last week. How many were automobile related? How many were heart disease? How many were cancer? How many were rockets? I'm guessing you already know how these dangers rank in the death toll.

I don't support either side in this. But, to say the suffering in Israel is even in the ballpark of what is being felt in Palestine is just silly. Please allow facts room to breath, regardless of your prejudices. We all have these prejudices. Please... please... just don't encourage them.

Oh come now. If a car collided with it as in that animation, tipping over wouldn't be the issue; it'd be flipping over.

I hope it comes with its own jaws of life. That thing won't survive a real wreck. At least on a non-enclosed motorcycle you could be thrown clear.

It has all of the danger of an automobile coupled with all of the danger of a motorcycle minus any of the safety aspects of both.

Thats one way to go racing http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zpgoz_un-anglais-s-invite-dans-une-course-automobile-a-brands-hatch_news?start=1