Congratulations! Your video, Container Transport in Vietnam, 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 17 Badge!

Your video, Container Transport in Vietnam, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I do body recovery and transport for several funeral homes and also a Medical Examiner in Florida. Basically, I'm a "Body Snatcher." I handle bodies from hospitals, hospices, private homes, crime scenes, auto accidents, etc,etc,etc.

The "cremation machine" is called a retort. It gets fairly loud and fairly warm while standing next to one. Surprisingly, there is very little odor if at all.

There is usually a waiting period of about a few days before a body can be cremated. This time can vary from state to state.

Cremations have become more popular over the years as it can reduce the cost for families that can't afford all the pomp and circumstance or just want simple send-off.

Disagree. Gold (or more specifically currency) has a huge number of advantages over barter, as shown with the second guy.

Barter has problems of divisibility, relative worth, storage, transport, etc... all of which are solved by a common currency.

Crypto has some advantages over traditional currency, but right now they're outweighed by the disadvantages such as instability (as mentioned by @notarobot), lack of trust, slow transaction speeds and frankly appalling levels of energy usage.

Blockchain might eventually become the future, but Bitcoin is basically dead because of these problems.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Why-Bitcoin-Is-Not-Working

Can be! It depends on the contents of the container and how air-tight its construction and materials are. Generally materials packed for transport are supposed to be strapped or otherwise held in place so that they don't shift and upset the transport vehicle (see the 747 that crashed in the Middle East when its cargo shifted...). But that's just the stuff that was meant to be in the container. Every ship has to contend with the risk of water ingress. Un-contained water in a vessel forms a "free surface" and the so-called free surface effect applies. That's where that material can and will move based on gravity, often making a bad situation much much worse. Imagine water in a tank (itself a free surface) vs. water sloshing around the cabin of a plane. This is what usually causes ships to capsize: water gets in and isn't contained, so it can move tremendous amounts of mass anywhere it wants to go -- usually in the direction it's already going. Calculations of ship stability for things like cargo loading and ballast assume minimal free surface in the ship, because you have to. That's how ships stay upright and afloat.

How does this apply to lost containers? Depending on how watertight the container is and how well strapped in the contents are, some amount of water may get in and form a free surface. This free surface will move around until the container finds its equilibrium which may or may not be watertight and less dense than the water around it, which defines whether it floats or sinks and what direction it faces when it does.

A container with a lot of weight on one side but otherwise watertight will stand upright and perhaps still sink (like the one at the end of this video). A container with well-distributed weight would tend to end up flat. Whether it sinks or not depends on whether it's watertight and what its density is -- the weight of the container displacing ocean vs. the weight of the ocean it displaces.

Sadly, a significant number of containers end up at the worst possible density/displacement where they float just at or near the surface and lay in wait to devastate passing ships, regardless of the orientation of the container itself.

Another terrifying angle

At least ten people were injured in a ski-lift crush in Georgia’s mountain resort of Gudauri.

The citizens of Georgia, Ukraine, Russia and Sweden were reportedly taken to a hospital with minor injuries.

A ski lift malfunction was reported at Sadzele mountain ski trail in Gudauri in the morning on 16 March. There was an emergency stop after which the ski lift chairs started sliding back. The riders had to jump off the ski lift to survive.
According to the Georgian Healthcare Minister, David Sergeenko, 8 people turned to the Gudauri-based medical emergency clinic.

“Luckily no one was killed or seriously injured. There are two patients, the nationals of Ukraine and Sweden, who still need to be paid particular attention,” said David Sergeenko. According to the Georgian Healthcare Minister, the Ukrainian citizen has an open fracture of a forearm, while another injured person, a Swedish national, is a pregnant woman. Both of them have been transported from Gudauri to Tbilisi by helicopter.

The Georgian Ministry of Interior has instituted criminal proceedings under Article 275 of the Criminal Code of Georgia – “violation of safety regulations or procedures for the operation of the railway, water, air or cableway transport traffic”.

To be fair, what I thought is new is the cheaper motor running on regular unleaded gas more efficiently. Airplane fuel is insanely expensive compared to gas, and harder to get in remote places.
Ground effects plane/boats have been around for quite some time, but not in a commercially useful configuration. This seems like a big step up from small ferries or tour boats (faster and smoother rides) and far cheaper than small planes to buy and operate.

Yeah, the biggest ecranoplan was enormous, with immense lifting capacity but little evasive capacity, so they were awful in practice as military vehicles except as transports well behind the front. I can't find any instances of them being used in conflicts.

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

In terms of exploding or burning, probably not nearly as dangerous as gasoline. The biggest problem with it is that, since the molecules are so tiny, it's very hard to store and transport without it leaking away. Also, the standard procedure for getting hydrogen from water (electrolysis) requires considerably more energy than you get out of the hydrogen, so that's a problem. Still all that aside, if you use power from a nuclear reactor to crack the water to make the hydrogen, you have a nearly unlimited supply of a portable, energy-dense, very clean fuel. Researching and refining its use as a fuel is a Good Thing.

Not if done right.
There are ways to do it without excessive waste, safely with zero possibility of meltdown or radioactive release, but getting new processes approved beyond experimental plants is nearly impossible.

Also, ironically, it's anti nuclear activists that got America to store rather than re-refine our waste, which adds exponentially to the costs and dangers. Reenrichment on site removes all the dangers of transportation and storage of waste, and means up to 90% less mining for the same amount of fuel....but we don't.

Don't get me wrong....I'm far more in favor of solar, wind, wave, and tidal generation, but I think nuclear power has it's place, and already exists. I just think it's dumb to be doing it as wastefully and dangerously as possible.

Eating more vegetables and less meat is undoubtedly good for you.

But if people want to make a real difference to climate change, there's one really simple thing they can do and it will make more difference than any amount of dietary or transport decisions:

Have one less kid (preferably one less than one).

Articles in Norwegian:
https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/her-er-skuleguten-berre-sekund-fra-a-bli-pakoyrd-1.13774425
https://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/i/MxVxE/Filmet-sjokkerende-nestenulykke--Jeg-ble-helt-skjelven
http://www.tv2.no/a/9484777/

The driver behind flashed his lights and honked, to warn the oncoming truck.
The bus did not stop on an approved bus stop, and the transport company was looking into the incident.
But then again - this could easily have happened on a regular bus stop.
Some places, where there is quite a distance between each bus stop, the bus driver and parents agree to stop certain places between the bus stops.

Norwegian busses have always, since I was a kid, had warning labels "Do not cross the road before the bus has left". This is why.

America. I really don't know that they've made any meaningful changes to rentals, but I recall they made some. I don't rent semi trucks to know what. I do know they now surround crowds with dump trucks full of sand to block trucks. Those bollards, they're regulators too of a sort, regulating vehicular access to certain areas at certain times.

If systems were designed that way, sure public transport could do it all, but ours aren't....and to make that work outside of metropolitan areas gets prohibitively expensive.

Including all the negatives (economic detriment, need for protection from others that have them, injuries and deaths, property damage, lead pollution, mitigation programs, etc), I doubt guns are a net gain....all depends on what you value though. They are mostly considered essential to protect from other guns, without other guns it's really hard to make the case that they're essential if you don't hunt to eat.

Civilization could work fine without autos, but it would require a revamp of all transportation systems. Revamping police to deal with an unarmed populace seems far easier to me.

Sticks? You've heard of swords, right? ;-)

I don't know where you live, but you can hire or steal a truck pretty easily here in Australia (one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world). And our regulations haven't stopped recent idiots mowing down people with cars on purpose (Melbourne!!!). They're thinking of putting bollards in place in strategic locations - because you can't regulate away what we don't want happening.

Yes, some things kill at lower rates than the examples but I had to end somewhere.

Vehicle ownership is not essential. You can have public transport service everyone just fine (e.g. Singapore). Of course, some people argue that what is good for Singapore may not be suitable for themselves (i.e. it is essential in my scenario because I say it is). And you can extend that same argument to firearms (that they are essential in someone else's scenario). Firearms have a measured economic benefit, protection benefit, health benefit (active outdoor sports), military benefit, etc.

Modern civilisation works fine (I'd argue it works better) without private vehicles. Try having a civilisation without firearms - you'll have to have awfully large mobs of bobbies armed with nothing but sticks. Good luck with that

Which is why, when just registration and licensing proved inadequate, more regulations were put in place to make it harder to get trucks and often impossible to get them into crowds now, without complaint. Just think...if only that could work with other devices to prevent mass killings....oh wait.

Plenty of things that kill or harm at lower rates are regulated far more strictly. The examples you give are all essentials that might occasionally go wrong, guns often kill when they work as designed, rarely by accident.

The difference is, modern civilization doesn't work without personal and commercial transportation or doctors, but does just fine without firearms. Firearms offer no tangible benefit to civilization, cars and medicine do, even with their undeniable faults.