Congratulations! Your video, Reckless hot air ballooning, 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 4 Badge!

Your video, Reckless hot air ballooning, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 5 Badge!

"A buddhist, a muslim, a nun and a jew were stuck in a hot air balloon.

It suddenly popped and though they prayed as it dropped, it proves that God hates us all!"

-- (whatever happened to) the Chainsaw Juggler?"
The Four Postmen

https://youtu.be/0eeZOO1PQnY
https://youtu.be/0eeZOO1PQnY

Your video, Video Shows Hot Air Balloon Crashing In New Mexico, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 87 Badge!

Some hot air and a song. Sponsored ideology.

Just as I had suspected. Full of hot air.

@bobknight33 you and my dad must be drinkin the same kool aid.

The stuff from OAN is straight Russian propaganda & Idk how much more proof one needs than this, striaght from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."

"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"

What part of that is confusing?

?

The IG report is perhaps damning of the FBI to an extent, but it seems like it's a story of a failure to follow protocol. They may have been apprehensive about it given the agency's usual staying-out of politics amid an election, or considering they didn't find anything on the first go-round, they suspected there wasn't anything else to find in subsequent emails (which their wasn't).

It IS worth pointing out in the IG report that Comey and other FBI used a private email server to conduct gov business. But it seems there are people doing that on both the left and the right anyway: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/pence-used-personal-email-state-business----and-hacked/98604904/

The emails story seems like a lot of hot air, the undermining of our Democracy through hyper partisan Russian propaganda networks is, on the other hand, very real.

Not the *only* thing.

We also don't invade if you don't have anything we want, or if you can't be exploited as a pawn in a proxy war.

N. Korea doesn't have anything we want, so they would generally be safe on that account. On the other hand, the Korean War (particularly support from China, Russia, and the US) was very much tied into early and continuing Capitalism vs Communism proxy wars wherein those major players downplayed direct confrontation (why the Cold War was cold) but were quite happy to ramp things up indirectly.

Things frequently don't go real well for countries tied up in that history. We arm Afghanistan to indirectly prod the USSR, decades later that comes back to bite us and we hit them back with a rather disproportionate degree of destruction. The USSR sets Cuba up as a potential proxy Communist threat to the US, which pushes us pretty close to nuclear war. Fortunately we avoided that, but the fallout for Cuba in trade sanctions etc. persists to this day. And on and on.

So I concur, N. Korea has plenty of reasons to see the US as the bad guys. Personally, I think Obama's strategy of patience was probably the best. Either they are full of hot air and won't ever actually do anything, or they'll eventually do something so provocative that China will have no choice but to withdraw that lifeline. In the meantime, N. Korean people are the ones suffering the most. Not much to be done about that, because the US has an even worse track record when it comes to interfering "to save the people of {wherever} from their terrible leaders"...

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.

Well, there's an abundance of *quality HOT AIR on the airwaves these days ... that was fun ... at first [maybe not so good for global warming though, eh?]

What an idiot.
"Just give me your plan of how you're going to do it and leave it there. Don't tell me what can't be done and what laws have to be passed" "Voters want simple answers."
Complex issues have complex solutions. Any actual plan MUST examine the limits of what can and can't be done, and what laws must be changed to implement it, or it's just hot air and not a plan.
Is Sanders a Democrat?!? OMG, you've GOT to be kidding me. CLINTON said that?!? Ohhhh....another new low.

Ice has lower density than water, so no.

If you meant the fire, wood doesn't conduct heat terribly well and hot air rises so the main mechanism for heating the ice will be radiant heat... so this isn't a terribly efficient way to make a hole in the ice with fire.

So wait...the agreement is to 'limit' temperature rise to 3.6F, the exact temperature rise they have said is the point at which feedback loops become engaged and make CO2 the least of our problems? Then...at some future point...they agree to limit CO2 production to levels that natural processes can absorb, with no time limit for that, and until then we'll continue to add to the already out of balance levels of CO2, adding to the already unsolvable problem? How on earth can they expect to do the former without first going well beyond the latter? There's no way to limit temperature rise from CO2 without lowering the amount in the atmosphere...and this plan NEVER goes that far, it only agrees to, at some point, balance the amount we add with the amount being removed...that keeps the levels at above current levels, it does not lower them. That keeps the temperature rise in effect, only lowering the speed at which it's rise accelerates, not lowering the speed it rises.
From what I can grasp of this 'agreement', it's beyond worthless and does nothing to solve the problem, only agrees to limit the speed at which we make it worse. It seemingly ignores the fact that what we do today takes 50-100 years to effect the climate and pretends that slowing (not stopping) the RISE in CO2 production is in any way meaningful. If we stopped ALL human CO2 production tomorrow, we still will see the 3.6F rise, the acidification of the ocean, and the myriad of issues that come from those and other disrupted natural cycles.

Also, if we stopped all CO2 production tomorrow, that would mean shutting down coal power plants, and that (while necessary) brings with it the problem of stopping global dimming. Global dimming occurs when aerosols block sunlight in the upper atmosphere, and has directly counteracted some effects of global warming. If we stop putting the pollution up there, we get a few more degrees of temperature rise from that alone.
Unexpected feedbacks like this make solving the problem an issue that requires thorough knowledge of all the processes involved, a near impossibility, meaning anyone who's not a professional climatologist who's offering solutions or opinions is really just spouting hot air....kind of like I just did.

One more incident of cops being unbelievable douchebags, and other cops allowing them to get away with it. Sickening how often this kind of thing is caught on tape, meaning it happens 10 times more often than we see at least.
Glad he's on leave at least, but a paid vacation does not really seem the appropriate outcome, here's hoping he's fired after the 'investigation', but I doubt it.
Good thing his angry threat to 'confiscate the video' was more hot air.
Crappy that even the reasonable officer tells him clearly "the longer you stay here, the more trouble you're going to get into", implying 'because the detective will make more trouble for you, he's lost it', and doesn't tell the detective that jumping out of your unmarked car and threatening to shoot someone in the head and beat them to a pulp is out of order.
If this was an 'open carry' guy who 'stood his ground', he could have shot that cop with no (legal) consequence.
Damn it, I'm going to have to get a dash cam just to protect myself from outrageous 'authority figures' now.

Spinning the iphone - it is possible to do, i've played with that effect with a tv remote as a kid, trying to flip it over once and catch it. That's when i found out about Dzhanibekov effect. I think that basically more mass lies along the plane in which it is spinning, and it either isn't balanced or isn't precisely stable as it's released, and so there is a net centrifugal force acting on the phone in the direction that it begins to rotate (if you don't do it right), gently at first but the further it goes into its spin the more it reinforces itself and it flips. (that's what i remember from childhood, but the wikipedia article itself is accurate so double check) I'd like to investigate this effect in space/vacuums though, it's still interesting.

The water one - this is just one scientific opinion and i imagine many exist, but i can't find any true source on this. My immediate reaction to his explanation about the uniform electric field is to consider the field projected by the cup - prior warning simplifications are rife. Approximate the electric field emitted by the negatively charged cup as being normal to the surface at any point on the surface. You bring that field towards the water, and if there is indeed a more positively charged side, then it would experience a force in an electric field. We can safely believe that the water molecules will fall facing in all directions (fluid dynamics ensuring a nice distribution of particles within the stream allowing us to believe that), and any that are not pointed exactly parallel to the electric field will experience some kind of force. However water can also have a meniscus, which might encourage the water to "stick together" a bit and head towards the negative source, but i'm not sure about that in a flowing/falling context.

The fundamental point here is that an electric field is introduced to the water which responds by moving towards the source of the field. He hasn't shown me anything to doubt the standard explanation, and i don't understand why he thinks that the molecule wouldn't experience a force if it is as described. Without using electric charge to explain it, and i'm quite certain it isn't magnetic (the only other associated phenomenon), he's basically saying it's magic?

@robbersdog49 got the cane and cereal ones, and the teabag one is of course just the fact that the burning teabag heats nearby air, hot air rises which causes cooler air to rush in from the side and below, which causes a bit of an upwards current of flowing air, and when the remnant of the teabag is light enough, it is lifted by that force. As it burns lower, there's less fuel (paper) and it's less hot, so the force drops, so it only happens when it's nearly ash and very light. The last piece almost doesn't make it.