*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Rooftop-Pool-Empties-During-Manila-Earthquake

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by ant.

*dupeof= https://videosift.com/video/Rooftop-Pool-Empties-During-Manila-Earthquake
@ant

Your video, Rooftop Pool Empties During Manila Earthquake, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Short answer: yes. 100%.

Long answer:
Well, let's unpack this.

"the acts of a 17 yr old boy"
I did some dumb shit when I was a kid. Nothing major, but I certainly wasn't a choir boy. But this isn't some drunken hijinx. It isn't even some petty crime.

This is an accusation of violent sexual assault.

Now, even then, I'd be willing to grant that people can change. If he'd paid his due, apologised, and proved he had changed, I'd be willing to say that everyone deserves a shot at redemption.

But...
"no other history of repeat offense"
you mean apart from the other two women accusing him of sexual assault?

Finally...
"destroy a career"
Let's cut this bullshit right here. Your career is not "destroyed" if you don't get to sit on the supreme court. I'm a software developer. I'll never work for Google or Apple or Facebook or whatever, but career is doing fine, thanks.

It's the Supreme Court... it should literally be the elite of the elite in legal minds. If you've got two candidates who are identical in all respects except one got slightly better marks in high school, you take that one BECAUSE YOU CAN.

Kavanaugh is clearly not the best available. If nothing else, this process has shown that he is woefully unsuitable for this position. He has constantly lied, deflected and then become hysterical (and yes, I'm using that particular word very deliberately).

But what saddens about this whole thing (and it really shouldn't surprise me at this point) is the hypocrisy of the right. Because it's Trumps pick, they're all "it's just youthful exuberance" and "let bygones be bygones" where you know if the tables were turned and it was a democratic pick who had even a minor misdemeanour they would be screaming from the rooftops.

The funny thing is, I still think that Kavanaugh (whatever I may personally think of the slimy fuck-weasel) deserves the presumption of innocence. If he really was the guy he's made out to be by the right, he would have said "I'm innocent, but of course this should be investigated. I am terribly sorry for this woman. She has obviously been through a traumatic incident, but she has me confused for someone else." and then it would have been investigated, probably nothing would be found (due to the age of the claims and the difficulty of gathering evidence).

He could have handled this with humility, sympathy and dignity.

But he failed every possible test. He has shown himself utterly unfit to be on the supreme court, and quite frankly, he's shown himself to be a poor excuse for a human. Fuck him so very much.

That was amazing! *doublepromote

Locations in order of appearance:

1:15 Pont de Bir-Hakeim, Paris, France
1:30 Berlin Wall Memorial, Berlin, Germany
1:43 La Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, Spain
1:56 Hoxton Alley, London, UK
2:11 Regents Park, London, UK
2:33 Calle Traghetto Vecchio, Venice, Italy
2:49 St. Pauls Cathedral, London, UK
3:08 Rooftop Terrace, Copenhagen, Denmark
3:25 Sand Dunes, Dubai, UAE
3:33 Red Square, Moscow, Russia
3:45 Gulfoss and Gljúfurárfoss Waterfalls, Iceland
4:01 Mrs. Macqauries Point, Sydney, Australia
4:19 Shibuya Crossing, Tokyo, Japan
4:36 Brooklyn Bridge, New York City, United States of America

Was the Washington Post in an article on September 18, 2001 when it wrote the following?

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281
448290025183&tid=ss_fb



Colbert's Leftist Comedy Puts CBS in Ratings Rut now in 3rd place. Guess not what real Americans want.

Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.

First, the suggestion that no more reactors should be built because people use them to aid in production of nuclear weapons. Well kids, that ship has already sailed: In June 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that nine nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) possessed approx. 16,300 nuclear weapons in total. So someone builds one or 10 more? Yeah, that will matter. Someone needs to read up on the concept of deterrence.

When talking about waste: "Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around" - well, that's just horseshit.

Regarding accidents and number of deaths due to nuclear reactors: "devastating disasters every 30 years" - devastating? Come on, people died, but compared to other sources of energy, according to the WHO, it is by far the safest. Consider:

Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

Coal - world average, 161
Coal - China, 278
Coal - USA, 15
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar/rooftop - 0.44-0.83
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - world, 0.10
Hydro - world*, 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04

* Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

So, if not dubious, certainly cheap and pedantic.

As a person who has solar on their roof, our bills have shown a slight decline (and I live in a tropical location with no obscuring of the panels), but that doesn't offset the cost of production (both in labour and energy input which is mostly supplied by carbon based sources). I run a 6 KW/h array which is slightly overclocked as we are capped at 5 KW/h input to the grid (at 8c KW/h sell, 36c KW/h buy). I'm looking at a ROI in ~11-15 years

There are also many studies (and not just from people who are pro nuke or anti-climate change) showing that solar PV in general, and rooftop solar specifically, is small potatoes in terms of energy returns, even when considering possible future gains in panel efficiency and storage technology.

I am not bashing solar because I don't like it, I spent the money to get an array on the roof because I think we do need to do something, but I'm not kidding myself in to believing that we're saving the planet when the vast majority of solar PV going out these days is manufactured in countries that emit enormous amounts of carbon and pay people peanuts to do the work... When, as you say, solar is heavily subsidised or has rebates offered to drive take up.

Nuke is expensive, but it returns far more energy than is invested to build it. Hydro, similarly (although Cali etc shows why hydro might be a dead end in this changing world climate). We can invest an enormous amount of time in half measures, or we can do it right, at least until we crack large scale fusion power production.

If it worked as well as it's hyped to do, huzzah, happy days. But so far, the boom is mostly hyperbole. At the very least, f#ck off subsidies/rebates etc to households and instead build huge solar PV farms with helio tracking arrays which make a better return on energy invested and basically give far more bang for buck. Or sink it all in to wind and cut back on PV. It's a feel good technology with hidden baked in carbon costs that is lulling us in to a false sense of security.

Reading these comments, how can believers chalk up something tragic to being part of "God's Plan", if mankind having free will means the deity doesn't necessarily know what is going to happen?

Maybe on my deathbed I will grasp at straws and wish for everlasting life but in my daily life it just sounds like a Hallmark sentiment that people use to comfort themselves and others. There’s not enough pixie dust in the universe for me to snort to get me to believe in everlasting anything, much less shout it from the rooftops. (my essence/soul/personality/memories will be around long after our sun collapses, just because I accepted a deity "into my heart"?).

Some child rapist/murderer repents on his deathbed with seconds to go, and St Peter throws the switch on his soul train to where he now has eternal life instead of eternal damnation. Again, not enough pixie dust.

'Rooftop bathtub in a castle truck in New Zealand' is a phrase I want to repeat over and over and over.

Just to play devil's advocate here, the poses of the male and female covers are actually quite different, in my opinion.

Spiderman is lying flat against the surface of a globe with his body pressed against it. I haven't seen any gay porn that depicts models (admittedly I'm not one to peruse much gay porn) in this way in order to evoke sexual feelings.

Spiderwoman on the other hand is simply kneeling on a rooftop and has her ass thrust into the air, with back arched and head raised. As a hetero male, that's imagery I see used to evoke sexual feelings in Sports Illustrated, Playboy, etc. It does totally looks like she's presenting her ass to me specifically because there's no reason for her ass to be up in the air higher than her head (in Spiderman's case he's upside down so of course his ass is going to be over his head).

As far as the rest of his argument goes, I'll simply say this--people are not upset about the sexualization so much as people are upset that when men get sexualized in media it is often in a manner that is idealized by men themselves (i.e. muscular, ripped body) and when women get sexualized... it is often in a manner that is idealized by men themselves (i.e. big boobs, unrealistic body figure, etc.) because it is the men who often control authorship in the media. Of course you're going to alienate potential women readers if you don't present them with an idealized version of themselves but instead give them an idealized version of who men want them to be.

When the snow falls it is already frozen - snow is just small particles of ice - and it requires just as much energy to melt the water as incoming falling snow as already formed ice. And then you have to get rid of all the water from melted snow and ice. Guess could heat the sides of the road as well - deep into the ground.


What _would_ make more sense than Solar Freakin' Roadways could for example be Solar Freakin' Rooftops - on a grand scale.

you're not wrong that rooftop solar panels would collect more energy. but this also kills many birds with one idea/stone. since asphalt is petroleum-based, the costs for roads is constantly going up, this solves that. this solves a lot of issues with electric vehicles, and snow plowing and many others that the video addresses.

but hey, even if this idea ultimately doesn't work out. any work done on this project can be spun off into a new project that could benefit us greatly.

so I've got zero problem investing in this, even if it ultimately it doesn't pan out, because this work will ultimately benefit someone else's work.