previously on Videosift...I seem to remember doing what I always do when I get a pocket fulla points-I used em up all really fast while I was rollin', usually on other people's videos and a LOT of sift talk posts. It'[s a way of saying , "Hey, I like the cut of your jib!" * quality!

Now, powers?? That's a different beast altogether. Why, as well as flagrantly abusing the powers I had earned through tenure and hard work I also set out, on occasion, to spank insolent children when their bullshit started stackikng-up so high it began to waft. Yes. I don't work well with ALL, just most others.

There came a time when the mob ruled in the favor of a handful of cunts, I trust this won;t be an issue in future, as everyone knows how to engage in civil PRIVATE (hint, hint, douchebags) discourse before pulling out weapons.

The worst part of being banned unilaterally by a single user is not having an arena to adjust grievances mutually and correct simple misunderstandings....You must simply watch as assholes make shit up after you are gone.

I am sure that if anyone lurking smells a personal resemblance to the aforementioned odor, they are now welcome to come forward anytime, and kiss my natural euro-mutt ass!!

I hope that this bit of personal reflection has afforded you with a better understanding of the shaping of Videosiftistory dynamics.
MORAL: Some but not all rules and somebunal egos, are asking to be broken.

Anytime! (or until my points run out which should be soon)

Thank YOU for the promote on my video the other day, I'm sorry I didn't come by to thank you sooner.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

Good points. Not that I agree wholeheartedly or at all, necessarily, but you seem congruent in quoting a text. Bibliography isn't stout enough for MLA standards, but I'll let it pass.



Here's what I don't get the most; out of all things you are not supposed to do according to the bible, it seems like homosexuality gets an "unfair" mention. Being that it's only condemned a few times. Now, I know if it's condemned once it might as well be condemned a thousand times, but I just feel that it's slightly coincidental that homosexuality—an act that can actually be repulsive to a non-homosexual or to a homosexual that's ashamed of his/her own feelings—that it is the one touted as the downfall of humanity. I mean there are plenty of ways to sin, why is so much emphasis placed on homosexuality. It just doesn't seem to be congruent with the amount of mentions it has.



Also, as a straight male, I've never had to make a decision in my sexuality. In fact, if anything I'd say it seems out of my control (not my actions but my tastes). So really, anecdotally, I'd say that sexuality is far from being within our conscious control. The problem, it seem, the religious have with that, is it seems to undermine parts of the bible. This, to me, is why it has become such a lynch-pin issue. To admit homosexuality is naturally occurring and against our control, would prove a part, even a small part, of the bible fallacious.

Instead of attacking homosexuality, however, I'd think that Christians would be better off focusing as much on homosexuality as is in the bible—which is very little.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.

That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.
It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:
Romans 1:18-21
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.
And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:
2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

>> ^VoodooV:

I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.
Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.
This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.
Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.
Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.
even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.
Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.
God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.


That may be true of the various religions, but in Christianity you have near universal agreement on the foundational tenants of the faith, both today and going back to the early church. How you get saved and what God expects you is very well understood and agreed upon by nearly all Christians. Yes, there are differences..some people think baptism is really important, some not so much. Some people think speaking in tongues is important, others not so much. These are all peripheral issues to the heart of the fatih, which is the suffering death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no confusion in the church as a whole as to how you get saved.

It's also not that God is a bad communicator, it is people are hard of hearing because they suppress the truth:

Romans 1:18-21

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

He gives everyone more than a clue that He is there and what He expects of them, but they harden their hearts to God because of sin.

And far be it from me to defend the WBC, but they have a point about sin. This nation (world) glorifies sin, but sin is what leads people to destruction. If you glorify sin to someone, it is like hating them. Where the WBC goes wrong, and that's to put it mildly, is the negative and judgmental way they present the gospel. This is what scripture says about sharing the faith:

2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

I think they skipped over these verses when they put together their ministry. They've probably done more in recent times to turn people away from Christ than all the televangelists put together.

I do have to give the WBC credit for just showing up and credit to Brand for controlling his audience enough to give them a chance to speak.

Anytime you have that chance to at least have a dialog is a win and how one learns.

This just reinforces the absurdity of believing in a god or at the very least having any immutable doctrine of god.

Even if you're at the very least a deist, this idea that you can know precisely what god wants (on BOTH sides of the issue). You don't know that god wants you to hate fags, for that matter you don't know that god wants you to love either.

Even amongst people of the same faith, you can't get anyone to agree on exactly what god is/wants. There is no authoritative source, and that includes the bible and it's multiple versions. There is no empirical evidence either way.

even if you do believe in a god, saying "I don't know" sets you free from any religion or cult like this.

Even if a god does exist and does in fact hate homosexuality and does not want you to be/practice it. He's got an undeniably shitty way of communicating this guideline and why it should be adhered to.

God may be all powerful, but he's shite at communication and education.

Bloody talented bastage. I sure hope he doesn't suffer a horrible painful death anytime soon.

Wow. I cannot remember anytime I've ever watched the entirety of a 5 minute commercial. Jesus, that was pretty.

*wings
*wheels
*water
*doublerainbow @ 4:15
*doublehumbacks @ 4:23

I owe this badboy a promote.

This is like 3am at Anytime Fitness on the weekends.

hmmh...meh, oversimplifies things. Some of these matters are not really "fixable" by fighting against them, but looking for the root of the fault which is buried deeply into the culture, and that's gonna be a bitch to change.

Rape is the first thing that should be addressed in my opinion, but I don't see that changing anytime soon no matter what they wear. I almost find it insulting how trivially this clip takes on the problem, of course most of the world knows women should have the right to walk without the fear of being raped, or at least I have that kind of image in my head, call me naive if you will. And people treat EVERYTHING as a joke, why should rape have exemption from this? Of course he could have meant that we don't take rape seriously enough, but if that is the case he should have worded it better.

Valid points and what should be just common sense on the pro choice and sexual health subjects, I'd say I don't understand why this is even a subject anymore, but knowing what kind of whackjobs get into power nowadays it is a small wonder that things are as "good" as they are. Yet another thing that's being oppressed by religious zealots and/or by values that are drawn from religious values. It also sickens me to use the word "value" for such things.

All in all, these problems and the reasons behind them are convoluted and these kinds of clips don't do much to fix them, and work just as mediocre awareness adverts if anything, which is a good thing, I guess.

//and what I mean by "not fixable by fighting against them" is that to me it seems most people are just fighting against the concept of the things and not against the root of the problem.

anytime my man.
i havent promoted one of your vids in quite awhile.too bad it was a dupe../sad face

>> ^deathcow:

They must be talking about using space to get from Europe to Australia, as friction is a real bitch otherwise.

Possibly, although I think its somewhat more likely they'd just be flying at very high altitudes where the atmosphere is very thin.


From what I read on wiki it seems the engine is basically rocket/turbine hybrid. They use liquid hydrogen as fuel but instead of storing oxygen they suck it out of the air. The problem the cooling fixes seems to be related to supersonic airflow. Turbine engines need subsonic airflow to work properly so they use a ram, a cone on the front of the turbine, to slow the airflow before it enters the engine. This heats the air entering the engine up a lot, hot air takes up more space and so its difficult to get enough oxygen to the hydrogen fuel. Cooling the air after it passes over the ram lowers the air pressure and allows more air to pass through the engine. Scramjets approach this problem a different way in that they can operate with supersonic airflow, although they have the limitation of not working subsonic.

Anyway. Its quite fascinating. I don't think we'll be seeing commercial aircraft using this technology anytime soon though. I'd be pretty nervous about flying on something that is basically rocket powered. Space tourism maybe? If it can fly to high altitudes with the turbine and then switch seamlessly to using onboard oxygen it could be a much more efficient way of getting into space without using onboard oxygen the whole way up.

Oh, and RIP Concorde. I used to go to school under their flightpath out of Heathrow. 11am on Wednesdays they used to rattle the windows passing over.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

Actually, the reductio ad absurdum goes a little further. If you think the government "owns" the people because it can collect taxes from them with impunity, and you claim to really believe in the idea that liberty is indistinguishable from the unfettered exercise of property rights, then really, you should be defending any government exercise of power over its property, because it owns the people, and anything it does to its subjects is a legitimate exercise of liberty.

You already see them trotting out a form of this argument anytime there's a major management/labor dispute in the press. From there, you only really need to change a few words, and you wind up with almost exactly the rationale given by royalists in favor of hereditary monarchies in middle-age Europe.

Conservatives are more or less living out the final chapters of Animal Farm now. Their supposed dedication to principles born from a rebellion against authoritarian monarchies has, over the ensuing decades, been slowly twisted until it's become a rationale for establishing a new monarchy on this side of the Atlantic.

I keep waiting for the day I see a clip of some wingnut on Fox News declaring four legs good, two legs better that monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy because then those undesirable people we're always bitching about would truly know their place...

Anytime for Mr Burnside.
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
Thank you sir!
In reply to this comment by jonny:
*promote

Anytime!
In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
Thanks for hitting up my PQ :