That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Mushrooms are fucking disgusting. I don't understand how people can put that shit in their mouths. It's like how I imagine a slug would taste.

Ditto. My areas have plenty of small snails and shellless slugs, and they're bad enough. Argh!

@Asmo
i hear ya,and i felt i kinda addressed that issue.

guess i didn't,or at least not very well.

you and i have disagreed before and after some further discussion and/or clarification it became clear we were arguing two totally separate points,but our assumptions led us to believe we were in conflict.

but we were not.

i have had the exact same thing happen with BB,but because she was willing to slug it out and respected me enough to listen.we came to a much richer understanding of each other.

same goes for newtboy.

seewhatimsayin?
i am not choosing sides here,nor am i applying my own moral metric to the discussion.i am simply pointing out that assumptions,based on our own subjective understandings,can corrupt the conversation.

which can lead to unnecessary ugliness.

and that is depressing.

words are inert.just symbols on a page until they are observed and interpreted.that interpretation is predicated upon our own understandings,which are highly subjective.this can lead to misunderstandings of a persons intent and motivation and the only way to combat this is to actually talk with one another with respect...even if we disagree.

Thumbnail looked like a slug!

It had some pretty... er... powerful quotes in there. The Brad Pitt comments after Norton slugged him on the cheek were not quite the same words you'd hear on an episode of Teletubbies, for example. Leonardo and Jack prolly could have used a little mouthwash too.

The thing is, there are already well established nutrition supplement shakes that have been around for years with lots of clinical data to support their effectiveness, and moreover they cost less than half as much as Soylent. You can find them at every grocery story and pharmacy. I myself tend to keep a 12 pack of the generic equivalent of Ensure Plus around for when I oversleep or get home too late to cook or something and it's better to slug one down than to miss a meal.

Very neat idea!

If you replaced the magnets with a non-magnetic material conductively glued onto the magnet, it would still work. From wikipedia on 'electromechanical solenoid',

Electromechanical solenoids consist of an electromagnetically inductive coil, wound around a movable steel or iron slug (termed the armature). The coil is shaped such that the armature can be moved in and out of the center, altering the coil's inductance and thereby becoming an electromagnet. The armature is used to provide a mechanical force to some mechanism (such as controlling a pneumatic valve). Although typically weak over anything but very short distances, solenoids may be controlled directly by a controller circuit, and thus have very quick reaction times.
The force applied to the armature is proportional to the change in inductance of the coil with respect to the change in position of the armature, and the current flowing through the coil (see Faraday's law of induction). The force applied to the armature will always move the armature in a direction that increases the coil's inductance.

When I was in Marine Biology (for years) I always thought of nudibranchs as sea slugs with style. Some more than others.

You see an occasional video of cops doing something wrong and think all cops are evil.

Have you ever seen the videos of african-americans rioting or committing hate crimes against white people, or raiding stores or slugging white people or old white people? There are plenty available. Do you then draw the conclusion that all african-american people are evil?

You probably consider yourself a critical-thinker, don't you?

@milkman
Thanks for your great deal of thought on this subject.

However, I have ZERO regret over not "socking the creep."

It was inappropriate under those circumstances to hit this tiny guy. I was much bigger than him and I could have really hurt him. His assault on me was psychological more than physical -- my first response was to laugh! He didn't hurt me physically, clearly wasn't assaulting any more, and I was going to attack him?

Excuse me, but that seems a very male response to a situation. I don't see a single woman in this comment stream writing that I should have slugged or kneed him. Every comment about physically striking him came from men -- correct me if I am wrong, I might have the gender of some posters incorrect.

I am very clear, after thinking about this for a long time, that my single regret is that I didn't call him out verbally. It was my first regret, and I struggled to get to the place where I wasn't ashamed of my lack of action in not calling him out. I got myself out safely and that was the most important thing that had to happen. I did that. I was successful in protecting myself. I won.

But I learned from this -- if it happens again, because of this experience, I am prepared next time to SHAME THE HOLY HELL OUT OF HIM.

That is, IF I can do it safely. My first priority will always be to protect myself.

So if I do not feel threatened physically, I will call the perv out in such a way as to stay safe and embarrass the hell out of him. I do so want to "strike a blow" on behalf of all girls and women who have to suffer this shite, and maybe be a role model for any women and girls who happen to be watching.

If I feel threatened with additional physical assaults, I WILL use my training to protect myself -- which starts with body language and a strong NO, and physical strikes if necessary.

Here's a little factoid for you -- 78% of assaults on women are by single unarmed assailants. As we were taught in class, they are looking for a victim, not a fight. Strong body language, strong use of voice -- that is often all that is needed to protect yourself. Assholes will run away when you show you are willing to stand up for yourself.

No need to hit anyone, except with your chi.

Would he be firing slugs? I mean if you fired buckshot or something, wouldn't you run the risk of the pellets getting caught in the suppressor?

I wonder if he would get better holes if the slugs had fins.

The question with all these things is what advantage would it have over current military technology (i.e. firearms)?

While that was cool, it wasn't very powerful. Most of the slugs didn't even penetrate the laptop screen. Pretty sure even the "weakest" handgun would manage that.

I wonder if you can make that thing put a spin on those slugs so that they fly better.