When it slowly turned and dribbled across its own tread...I lol'd a lot.

Also, A+++ for title honesty.

"YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN SOMETHING, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS."

Worst fucking argument EVER. I'd like to see O'Reilly argue something where an off-camera committee of people get to shock him if 75% of them decide he's using hyperbole or some logical fallacy. I'd pay to see that.

Also, this Atheist organization should get someone to head it who won't make a fool of himself on TV. This guy is the Jwoww of Atheists.

@heathen I see what you're saying...the two being related still seems far-fetched. Something that kills birds mid-air and fish 125 miles away...not saying it's impossible that they're related, just that it probably isn't something as obvious as a pollutant.

Besides, NPR had a segment on All Things Considered last evening that said the birds they collected to study all had internal bleeding from what they thought was blunt force trauma and that they didn't expect to find any traces of pollutants.

>> ^heathen:

I'd guess pesticides, sprayed from a crop duster. The plane may have flown over where the birds were roosting. Then later the pesticides could have washed into the river, killing the fish mentioned in Deathcow's linked article.


Except as was pointed out, pollutants would have affected multiple fish species instead of only one. Also, I'd guess that it would be quite unlikely for pesticides sprayed in the air to travel 125 miles without dispersing to really low concentrations unless the initial concentration/quantity was ridiculously high. Plus, even if some chemical in the air reached the ground in a concentrated amount, it's also highly unlikely that, specific crazy topography aside, the local watershed could move the chemical 125 miles in the time span in question.

Until more info, I'd stick with the "unrelated" hypothesis.

HOLD X TO SWITCH WEAPONS BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH BUTTONS FOR THIS GENRE ON THIS STUPID XBOX.

@Payback what the hell is a merging spent? speed? Either way, you missed the point.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^lucky760:
I've heard this before but not in such detail. It reminds me of the study of traffic that shows that users who zoom ahead in an ending, merging lane help traffic move faster. Interesting stuff.

Let's see the study. I absolutely refuse to believe that.

http://blog.videosift.com/lucky760/Merging-Late-Speeds-Traffic


First of all, you misread the blog. It discussed a series of signs which encourage a single merge point and taking turns. Your quote refers to "zooming ahead" being beneficial, which is highly doubtful. See, just by reading that blog (and not the entire study, since it's not cited), I can think of multiple reasons why "merging late" and a system set up with signs to inform drivers of the optimal time to merge are completely different things.

For one, "merging late" only reduces travel time for the people who skip the line, so it might be mathematically better, but it's not better on average, nor is it fair. One of the first replies to the blog also indicates that it's probably having a single merge point rather than multiple is the mechanic which is making traffic smoother. Because face it, if everyone merged at the first available opportunity and took turns, it would be exactly the same as using both lanes up until the merge point and taking turns. It's the uncertainty, randomness, and speed of the merging which requires people to use their brakes a lot, hence slowing traffic.

Just because some headline agrees with whatever stupid thing you're doing doesn't mean you have to latch on to it as justification for whatever. It's like when there's some headline about scientists playing with genes that affect the aging process and every newspaper/nightly news headline is FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH!!!!

Use your brain.

>> ^vaporlock:

Damn WIKILEAKS for knocking the first one down!!!


LOL...A plus

"There's going to be divine assistance"

People who think magically scare the shit out of me.

This vid didn't get a lot of votes, but it completely connects the Religious/FOX News/Corporate complex together in a pretty intuitive way:
http://videosift.com/video/RSA-Animate-Smile-or-Die-the-hazards-of-positive-thinking

But the Audi commercial showed the car doing all those fancy moves in the snow!

Big surprise this scene leaked....

wow...I'd really like to see the full version.

My favorite final jeopardy category has always been "World History". You're supposed to make a wager on your knowledge, but for this category the clue could be ANYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENED.

I need to see the full version of this so I know if I need to change favorites.

I'd like to think this woman will learn something about being a horrible person from this, but I think cynicism is going to win out.

Who said there's no place for audio sifts? I hate them.

@xxovercastxx

True, but the "i before e" thing has been around since the 1800s, so I'd bet there were fewer loaner words at the time.

@robbersdog49

Yes, I share most of his views. There's a difference between knowing and not caring and using words incorrectly out of ignorance. As someone (possibly on sift) said recently, these conventions are the difference between saying stuff like, "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off a horse". One capital letter is all you need to get wrong to possibly confuse the hell out of someone. Did you help your uncle kill or masturbate a horse? Possibly important info.

I saw a sign today that said "Welcome hockey fan's!" Hockey fan's what?

Taco Bell is full of signs that say "WHY PAY MORE!". That sentence is a question.

These are things done out of ignorance/laziness. They're understandable and forgivable. I notice them being wrong, so it's slightly annoying and I'd fix it if I had the chance, but whatever. Purposely enjoying and playing with language is highly enjoyable. I change nouns into verbs all the time. On the other hand, sounding like an idiot in an email can cost you a job, etc. It's usually obvious which is the case (ignorance or being playful) and I always prefer the action done from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.