Food is sensuous.
People are sensual.

It's too do with having a consciousness or not. Food-Fucker-Carlson is talking to himself, not a hunk of chocolate that he has simulated sexual intercourse with.

Oops....no, we aren't.
I mistakenly thought this comment was about the Ellen Hunk Tac Toe video posted at the same time.
My mistake, sorry.

what a rambling hunk of bullshit that was; a word salad of trump calibar

Chunky Chris Pratt is just as sexy as hunked-up Chris Pratt. And he is so loveable.

It's like if you watched a cow get shot in the head, carved up and then served to you on a plate. You might be like "I'm gonna eat this timidly".

If you just walk in to a restaurant, totally abstracted from the process and a juicy hunk of meat is presented to you. You just dive right in.

If this water just came out of your tap and it was clean, tasteless and deemed healthy. Few days and you'd totally forget where or how it got there.

But I hanker for a hunk of cheese! What about me Timer?!?

Oh shit! He wasn't done paying for that worthless hunk of marketed romance.

I know absolutely nothing about CADCAM, but it just seems like that is a huge waste of metal when you think about how big the original hunk of metal was compared to the finished product. or can all that excess metal be re-smelted into another block?

Shut up Stupid you don't get to post a shit whiny propaganda piece like this hunk of crap and not get taken to task for it. Now take your lumps you Breitbart wanna be.

It's this kind of attitude that allows the ONLY PEOPLE to be in the public spectrum calculating, over coached little nothings. We're the ones that are the victims here, we make it so no actual human beings can get elected because we make it a "job" only for sociopaths.

You go after someone who's not funny trying to make a joke while on a Late Night Talk Show, and whine that she's called people Knuckleheads. What did she hurt your feelings? Grow the Fuck Up this shit has nothing to do with the argument about Obamacare, it has nothing to do with "Marketing" it's a shit hatchet piece by some fucking morons and you post that shit here and DON'T fucking destroy it? You're not this stupid.

Also the Health Care system is so immeasurably fucked up due to bureaucracy that instituting a SINGLE PAYER System would actually lower the debt. We wouldn't go bankrupt at all, we'd come out ahead. A majority of Americans supported it back in the 2004 election, except the corporations which is why it wasn't brought up during the campaigns as an option. Till fucking GM learned that hey they're spending $2000 per car more in Detroit than Canada because of health care costs.

You can look up the Australian Health Care system on your own, suffice to say it's not brought up in the media as an example of socialized medicine because it's easier to pick holes in the UK and Canadian systems.

The grander point is, you're being a hack with this crap. This is the kinda shit we take the fuck apart because it's retarded. If a liberal was going around saying "Oh Laura Bush called young people a knucklehead" we would be right to fucking destroy that liberal douche. This is hacky propaganda, quit placing yourself in the same corner as these pieces of shit from Campus Reform.

Yeah, I hated that monstrosity as well. I don't care if Walter White drives it, the design was outdated as soon as it hit the road. That angled rear window/hatch was just awkward to look at. The whole thing looked like plastic junk, the kind where after any sort of accident hunks of shattered plastic litter the road. The criticisms of this vehicles design are well earned.

Cooling a red-hot nickel ball with an otherwise untainted hunk of stew meat.

Damn giant hunk of flying metal, you science!

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

OK we have been pretty loose on these- what I would describe as "novelty polls" but it hunk the novelty is gone. Especially when there are a lot of pressing matters we're dealing with that could use this real estate in Sift Talk. In the future, please keep it Sift related, and it least have it make grammatical sense. *discard

>> ^Kalle:

One serious question that bothers me is.. why isnt it possible to use gravity as an energy source?
Would such a machine be a perpetual motion machine?


Gravity is REALLY weak. Like 36 orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic force. 36 orders of magnitude is massive...larger the the total number of stars in the known universe. For instance, a fridge magnet is defeating the ENTIRE gravitational force of the earth AND the sun. Gravity makes for a great way to bind the macro-universe together, but it is shit as an energy source.

Also, gravity has only one polarity...and it doesn't turn off. So for the EM force, we have 2 poles that can be switched around via electrical current to make lots of different energy related things. But for gravity, you just have one ground state, and once you are there you need to input energy to get away from that ground state...no way around that. However, what has been done and is done in certain areas is to have a closed system where you apply energy at certain time and store that energy for later. The example most commonly used is in dams, where the will pump a large volume of water back up stream (potential energy) and store it (a gravity battery if you will) and release it as a later time when demand is high. This is always a loss based way to make energy; your going to spend more pumping it back up (heat loss and other losses including evaporation) than you will when you get it back...so it is just a way to cause demand shifting towards other hours with additional entropy.

You have 4 fundamental forces to draw energy from; and 3 of those are the only practical ones. Strong (nuclear) force, the EM force, and the gravitational force (the weak force is actually the force that powers the earths core, but isn't useful to use in power generation for a similar reason gravity isn't).

The EM force is what we use in internal combustion engines and electrical motors. Chemical reactions are rearrangements of the electron structures of molecules, which makes gasoline engines possible via liquid to gas expansion pressures. Generators deal with EM fields, polarity and current which is what drives thermal reactors like coal or can drive a car with a motor via conversation of stored electrical energy(just a backwards generator). Nuclear reactors deal with the strong (nuclear) force, and combine that with kinetic/thermodynamic forces of same flavor as coal and other thermal plants.

Even gravity isn't perpetual, the orbits of ALL celestial bodies are unstable. Gravity is thought and reasonably well satisfied to travel in waves. These waves cause turbulence in what would seem calm orbits, slowly breaking them down over time...drawing them closer and closer together. Eventually, all orbits will cause ejection or collision.


As to what energy is best, I personally believe in the power of the strong force, as does the sun . When you are talking about the 4 forces and their ability to make energy for us, the strong force is 6 orders of magnitude greater than other chemical reactions we can make. The EM force is not to much weaker than the strong force, but the practical application of chemical reactions limits us to the electron cloud, making fuels for chemical reactions less energetic by a million to a billion times vs strong force fuels. Now, only fission has been shown to work for energy production currently, but I doubt that will be true forever. If you want LOTS of energy without much waste, you want strong force energy, period. That and the weak force are the 2 prime movers of sustained life on this planet. While the chemistry is what is hard at work DOING life, the strong and weak force provide the energy to sustain that chemistry. Without it, there are no winds, there is no heat in the sky nor from the core, no EM shield from that core. Just a cold, lifeless hunk of metals and gases floating in the weak gravitational force.

Sorry for the rant, energy is my most favorite current subject



(edit, corrected some typos and bad grammar)

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
You tell that hunk of junk, BR.