TL:RD: Flush mix tap for few seconds after not being used for hours. Count to three.

I would say that it is still advisable to flush out the stagnant water from pipes before drinking the water. Not a lot, until you feel the temperature to change. Reason is that while the warm water is now sanitary, it is still warm. Warm stagnant water goes bad pretty quickly, the pipes are NOT clean on the inside. If you have ever seen water mains pipes, you would probably boil your water, brit filter it and most likely perform an exorcision. It's bad, it is really really bad.. The main reason why the water stays drinkable is movement. Moving water is safe, the bacteria that lives on moving water is mostly harmless to us. But 15C to 22C is called "the death zone"; bacteria that thrives on moist conditions, between those temps is the most deadly we can find. E.Coli, Botulinum etc. all explode with those condition. So you take warm water to wash up that last tea, it stays in the pipes and you get a nice shot of bacteria first thing in the morning. Or you keep the tap on for ten seconds, flush out the main colony and then drink a fresh cold water; i'm sure this little trick will add years in to your life (just the fresh glass of water and the feeling we get from that should do the trick..)

But the days of flushing the whole length of pipe several times a day is unnecessary. Only important when it has sit for hours after running hot water thru that particular piece of pipe, maybe just few meters or few seconds. And even then most likely it's 100% safe but the gunk that sits in the pipes is DIRTY.. ffs, we got some wooden main lines still in use in the old town (built around circa 1600).. BTW, the water from those wooden pipes.. excellent, specially in the winter as it is just super cold, totally clear of all bacteria, it's like spring water. But that is mostly because they have been in use for hundreds of year, all the time with moving, cold, clean water running thru them. It's bacterial colonies work with us cleaning it.

Compare that to the other pipe system running thru our homes here: the main heating water that heats our homes, that water is so toxic that every cut you have while working with them, just a drop and you will get infected. It takes minutes and the cut will swell up. And the only really difference is that the heating system is on closed loop, with warm water and it sits for half a year stagnated.. It is still "clean" water, looks clean, doesn't smell. But that stuff is equal to biological warfare..

Why i know this? Well, i'm ex-junkie. Knowing what kind of water you inject to your veins is pretty fucking important if you wanna stay alive.

Scammer looked like a Zombie from World War Z... Quick! shoot it in the head, or inject yourself with a terminal disease!

I agree with a lot of this.

What I'd dispute is whether we know know for certain it is largely man-made. Again I would defer to NASA where it specifies it is "very likely due to human activities" that is the consensus. I study statistics and the hypothesis/ significance testing you could perform to test time periods before and after human activity would be very rigorous in determining a trend change, and there is certainly no lack of data.

As far predicting the benefit/harm and the most cost effective policy alternative if one is required, I agree it's debatable. There are organisations such as the Copenhagen Consensus that argue for technology based solutions such as stratospheric aerosol injection or carbon capture rather than pure taxes/reduced emissions.

My own (layman) take here is that mitigating a potentially large unknown is pragmatic. At the very least until such technologies are proven to be effective and feasible in reversing the trend. European colonists destroyed ecosystems through introducing but a handful of non-native species to a previously isolated habitats. I think it goes without saying we should not be naive about the unforeseen impacts of a global change like this and taking a conservative approach is warranted.

I didn't know the investigation and the trial was already over. Guess that's it then.

You do realize that even if this situation was properly officiated by the police, that that is still a problem with people? I also hope you realize that, again if this situation is proper that still Black people aren't treated properly in America.

I understand that there are always these controversial situations which everyone jumps on. They try to pick teams and make sure they win as best as they can, but this isn't about winners and losers. This is a society, and it has rungs, those at the bottom tend to be disproportionately Black and they get abused by those higher up. That is hardly debatable, and we have to decide if it is tolerable.

Unsurprisingly those at the bottom rung have decided it is not tolerable, which happens occasionally in history. It's a constant struggle and many gains about been made. I want to be on the side of history that espouses equality, that is ahead of the curve. I find it noble to drag humanity, kicking and screaming sometimes into a future of further enlightenment.

I'm not going to name people as racists or not-racists. It seems to me though a choice must be made by the individual. If this isn't tolerable to you than you can stand up. If it does not concern you then you need not inject your voice. It's not an attack on you, your world or your advantages. It's a struggle for those who see a problem, they will keep going. Those who stand with the status quo will not be remembered as noble people, they become the false prophets of history.

@lantern53

learn to read and stop injecting your own bias on the comments towards you my friend.

nobody said you were racist (not on this thread anyways) they said you "seemed",which is to say 'appeared" "your intent may possibly be".

i have not seen anybody on this thread state with conviction that the cop was in the wrong.in fact i am seeing most here postulate the exact opposite i.e:the cop may just have been in the right.

what i was attempting to put forth was that this may be a systematic flaw and not just one individual incident.the "US vs THEM" is a technique that works particularly well with most people and even more so with police (at least the ones i have spoken with).this polemic can be evidenced in this very thread."you lefties".."you progressives" .

all labels meant to divide people.
and they are meaningless.

but it easier to judge someone when they have been demonized.

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

@VoodooV

do i sound angry to you?
you are injecting an emotional component that quite frankly is non-existent.

"an emotional rant that has been boiling for months"

um..what?
and just how did you discern these supposed pent up emotions?
what evidence have i presented that my accusing you of being a hypocrite and bully is somehow derived from some emotional cauldron of hate?

what device did you use to come to these conclusions?
was it magic?
a crystal ball?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and somehow gained super powers to peer into another humans intentions?

again...you are projecting.

do you think i hate or dislike you?
do you think i am angry with you?
i dislike the hypocrisy.i dislike the bullying but those are only small aspects of a greater whole.
which is why i was pointing those aspects out.in my opinion you are better than those aspects and maybe i presume too much to feel that you are better than that.

once again i am truly saddened by your lack of understanding.
you seem to feel this is some personal vendetta,based on absolutely zero evidence.you also seem to be under the impression that i am using words to appeal to other sifters.never even considering that my usage may possibly be accurate and succinct.

has it even occurred to you that me pointing out that you are behaving badly may actually come from a standpoint of friendship?or is that a foreign concept to you?you seem to be so certain of your assumptions,yet i see no basis for them.

if you think that just because i point to your poor attitude in regards to certain people somehow translates to me hating or disliking you,you are so incredibly and concretely wrong.

i am truly sorry you do not understand.
my apologies for using words and terms that confuse you.i was not trying to be "cool" or gain the admiration of those who may be following our discussion.

"you proceed from a false assumption.i have no ego to bruise.of course..the ship is yours"

So you can't prove a negative, let's inject chemicals into children? This world has almost been destroyed several times over because people just assumed things would be ok if they tried some shit. America was going to use Nuclear Bombs to clear a bit of Alaska and they couldn't do it because some eskimos said "You don't know what'll happen." They know now that basically all of north america would be destroyed.

So you come back with "Can't prove a negative" I come back with, STOP FUCKING WITH SHIT WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. You can trust the government and corporations all you want. I want them regulated. Plain and fucking simple.

If there's irrefutable evidence that a suspect is guilty, a trial is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money. Executions themselves don't have to be expensive either. Get rid of death row, get rid of fancy lethal injections. Just break the criminal's neck and dump him in a hole or incinerate him. That would be far, far cheaper than providing him with food, shelter, medical care, etc, for the duration of his sentence.

The reliability of our judiciary system is another matter entirely and separate from the matter of punishment. It's definitely flawed and would need to be reworked before enacting any of the changes I've proposed.

Good points, Redsky.

However, there hasn't been nearly enough research on the effects of rehabilitation to claim that it consistently reduces recidivism. You mention Scandinavian countries in particular. How many of those rehabilitated prisoners were guilty of violent crimes? If you want to reduce recidivism, the death penalty will offer guaranteed results.

As for the U.S.'s murder rates, they aren't the highest among first-world countries. Higher than European countries, sure, but Europe is tiny. Russia is more comparable to the size of the U.S. and it has almost double the murder rate. China claims to have a 1.0 but I'd question the reliability of any data provided by that government.

I'm also pretty sure that most criminals recognize the severity of their crimes. If they aren't insane, they'll know that jaywalking will result in a far lesser penalty than murder. What it comes down to is risk versus reward. If breaking the law is the most convenient way of getting what they want and the likelihood of them getting caught is low, they'll break the law. That's rational behavior. It's the reason why people people slow down when they see a cop on the freeway instead of speeding like they would normally do. It's the reason why people won't hesitate to download a pirated movie but would think twice before trying to steal a movie from Best Buy. If someone wants to rob a liquor store and they see a cop inside, they will most likely not rob that particular liquor store. Not all criminals are psychotic murderers. On the contrary, most criminals are perfectly sane and break the law on a regular basis. They just make sure that the risks are low enough so they don't get caught.

Severe penalties mean nothing if they aren't enforced and increasing surveillance increases the likelihood of enforcement. Increasing surveillance wouldn't be cheap but then, rehabilitating criminals isn't cheap either. Getting rid of the prison system entirely and replacing it with efficient executions (nothing overly elaborate like lethal injections) would cut costs dramatically and allow for greatly expanded surveillance and enforcement, in addition to dramatically increasing the risk for any given crime. If the penalty for speeding was death and there were more cops patrolling the roads and freeways, I guarantee 99.9% of drivers would stop speeding. There's no hard data for this, of course, but that's because no country has ever attempted it.

Venezuela currently has over ten times the murder rate of the U.S. It was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty. Now, the country is riddled with corruption. Laws have no meaning because they are not enforced so criminals do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

Just wrong huh, Ok then this is gonna be fun.

Firstly I was answering the question posed by Russell Brand "Is Fox News more dangerous than ISIS?" Which any reasonable person, especially those who have had a family member blown away in Iraq recently can say NO They are NOT.

Second Point, was it Fox that was convincing the American Public of WMDs and warmongering, or was it everyone? There wasn't a channel you could find that wasn't fully behind the government because that is what they do. In this area Fox isn't special, you could've turned on CNN and MSNBC at anytime and seen a 95% to 5% reporting in for the war and against.

Also the fact that the public was much of a factor in the run up to war, not as much as you'd think. There was simply a lot of ambivalence but support for our troops. Due to the fact that we have an all volunteer mercenary force it's just a lot easier to ignore that Johnny is being marched off to war. It's not right, it's just how it is.

In conclusion, Fox, the News Network isn't worse than ISIS. They're just not, end of.

EDIT: Also it doesn't seem like I should have to point this out to people but I guess I do. Russell Brand is a funny comedian, he is not fucking Noam Chomsky. He isn't around to provide cogent analysis and if I met him I would agree with some things he says and destroy him on his ridiculous hyperbole. He's not meant to report to us in an honest way, that's not what he does that's not what he's known for. Look for people like this to inject insight into the discussion and you get exactly what you deserve.

I dunno about any need for a sarcasm tag here -- I think if I was on death row and I could choose the method of my own execution, "death by large quantity of explosives" sounds pretty good.

Guillotine and hanging might be lowest on my list. Electric chair not much better. Lethal injection a bit higher. I think if I could make my own suggestions, I'd ask for cannon / howitzer aimed at my head. Barring that, I guess I'd order "the Cobain" -- shotgun to the brain. Basically, I figure that the more thorough and quick, the better.

Congratulations! Your video, Lethal Injection Replaced with New Head-Ripping-Off Machine, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 10 Badge!

I don't follow.

How is an injection "no better than" and "zero progress" compared to decapitation?

And what about ripping someone's head off and smashing it with a giant meat tenderizer? Isn't that progress?

Is it that you're taking an anti-capital-punishment stance? If not, what do you mean?

Your video, Lethal Injection Replaced with New Head-Ripping-Off Machine, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.