People laughed at me when I started shitting in the urinal here at work.

Nuff said.

And for desert? Urinal cakes!

Urine is sterile.

>> ^fuzzyundies:

A guy was stabbed to death in my apartment building last night, apparently at a drug-fueled party. I live in an upscale area (heart of downtown Santa Monica), so it's not just an issue of "cleaning up a ghetto". Crazy passion knife rage can happen anywhere.
I had a lot of time to think today about what I'd do if I'd been at that party. I say appease, beg, bargain and run.


The range of outcomes is the same in good neighborhoods and in San Francisco's incompetent urine-soaked ghettos, but the averages are very different.

It wouldn't be possible for a smart person to be murdered at that party, because smart people wouldn't be at that party.

Makes sense. Urine dribbles down side of box, leaving main area clean for scratching around in.

Practical Kitteh is practical.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by jonny.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by BoneRemake. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sega-s-New-Urine-Controlled-Game

Here's the law, my highlights added:

Ohio Revised Code Title [29] XXIX CRIMES - PROCEDURE Chapter 2917: OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE
2917.11 Disorderly conduct.
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

(E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct.
[http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11]

So, were they (A) causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm? I think annoyance/alarm is fair.

Was it (5) physically offensive? Certainly -- notice the test isn't whether the person is urinating or not, but whether someone is physically offended by it. Seeing someone peeing -- whether they happen to be actors or not -- is physically offensive.

Did the act (5) serve a lawful and reasonable purpose to the offender? Well, he was making a TV bit by being physically offensive and annoying/alarming people, which is useful because it's his job. Does that count as "serving a purpose"? Going 'round in circles here.

As a musician I thought you might appreciate this
http://videosift.com/video/Guitar-Pee-Urinal-Making-Music-While-Taking-A-Piss

Damn, I'm too late again.
*promote

Edit: More info here

As I said, the quote is my own, from another video on the subject.

As for the toxicity of ammonia, here is a link to the Health Effects portion of the CDC's Toxicological Profile for Ammonia.

Lots to read, but basically it shows that, except in huge doses of concentrated ammonia, ammonia is readily converted by the liver into urea (hence the ammonia smell of urine). Ingesting ammonia in quantities that are harmful (though still not fatal) causes burns, and ulceration of the mouth. Obviously if there was that much in the food, there would be a problem.

The report points out, "In a study of volunteers, ingestion of a single ammonium chloride tablet (approximately 15 mg NH4+/kg/day) led to a small transient increase (33% above fasting levels) in arterial blood concentrations of ammonium ion in 11 out of 20 subjects (Conn 1972); no change was noted in the remaining nine subjects in this group.[...]These data indicate that ingested ammonia is readily absorbed from the digestive tract and that the liver plays a large role in removing it from the blood (Conn 1972).



Basically, the FDA allows the use of ammonia to sterilize food products because, 1. the quantities needed to harm a human would cause said humans not to eat the products and 2. being naturally occurring, and necessary for life (for the provision of nitrogen for amino acid synthesis), the ingestion of ammonia in these quantities has no long-term health effects.

I'm not trying to argue that eating that pink goo is good for you - but the obsession with the ammonia is the wrong approach to attacking it. Phosphorus, sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc. are also poisonous in the right quantities, and they are also all necessary for human life.

If there is any common thread to my rants here on the sift, it's that people attacking the wrong subject, regardless of their intentions, makes them look stupid and reduces their credibility to those of us who care to know the truth. I completely agree with Maher's point that the republicans just attack anything the liberals support, but when he makes that point using misleading/wrong information, he's just as bad as them.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Skeeve:
While I don't disagree with Maher's point, I'm getting really sick of people screaming about the ammonia used to treat the pink goo that is turned into chicken nuggets. As I said regarding another video:
"ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food."

This is like seeing someone sprinkle some sodium-free salt on their food and saying, "OMG that's potassium chloride! That's the lethal chemical in a lethal injection! That's going to kill you!!"
People just don't seem to care that a lot of chemicals that are popularly considered "toxic" are necessary for life or require unfathomably large doses to be harmful.

Where the hell is that quote from and is there any truth to it is what needs to be asked. To me that sounds like something a PR person would say, like in that video about Global Warming where they made the point that "CO2 is natural".
You've got more to answer for Skeeve and if you don't I'm bidding you a hearty GOOD DAY To You Sir!

>> ^Skeeve:

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.
The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.

People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:
@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS



I have no idea dude, whether it's the same here or not. Your post is very interesting. All I do know is my dad had prostate cancer after being checked and they caught it early enough for him to get away with a few weeks of radiation therapy, so maybe I'm biased