Later that day they had the best foam party the city had in years!

Your video, Aircraft Hangar Foam Fire Suppression Test, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 86 Badge!

I'm on the fence about that. I half want to see it looking good, and half want to see it the way it was. The only thing I really don't like visually about TNG is the foam rocks, and I doubt any amount of light touch editing will fix that.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^messenger:
I prefer the old one because the effects are part of the time it came from. Having advanced graphics is anachronistic and takes me out of the story.
(and I don't have a lawn)

It's not the effects that bother me as much as the crappy video quality. It's blurred and the colour grading is awful.

>> ^Sarzy:

FYI Rian Johnson (the director of this film) posted the following on Twitter:
"If you're already set on seeing Looper, I'd avoid any trailers from here on out. They don't ruin the movie, but they tip a few little things that are fun to discover in the context of the movie."
If the director of a film tells you to avoid the trailer, it's probably a good idea to listen.


...And this should also be a calling card to START telling movie companies to reign in their trailer releases, editing what information and scenes are still in and what isn't. You can easily make a perfectly good trailer that still gives you an idea of what the story will be that pulls the crowds and still not give away really anything. Hell, sometimes it's good to even leave the STORY a secret, as in my point below.

I may not have liked Cloverfield too much (although it did do a lot of things right, like atmosphere; leaving you in perpetual suspense with the characters--rather than you being the omniscient overseer as usual), but damn it's small burst trailer and viral craze was enough to make people foam at the mouth. The reason why it worked is right down below...

BTW, Hollywood executives I'm about to tell you what makes a good trailer:

This is ALL you need, produce curiosity and you have your audience (in fact I'd dare say that by putting more information in that gives away ANY plot lines will actually DIMINISH your crowd size). Just give them curiosity and if your film isn't good enough to form curiosity then you happen to be releasing a Tyler Perry movie, again (or Adam Sandler).

This obviously isn't ever true as the majority of people STILL see movies even though these trailers are released. But, is this because they don't care about the trailers or they just want to see the show either way (trailer be damned, like us). For us commenting, we are movie goers that actually LOVE cinema hate having movies ruined by seeing one bad trailer.

It would be nice if they would atleast give it a chance.

BTW, this looks like an interesting film, but yet again--why in the hell do we need to know the whole story and how it will end (you can almost guess a few ways it will; I shouldn't even be able to conceptualize it yet!) basically before going? Does everybody release Michael Bay style trailers now (The Transformers trailers were REALLY bad in this area, as is Michael Bay...)?

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Your right fire makes people stupid and panic for no reason most of the time. Funny story I was working as a fry cook at a Buffalo Wild Wings in my home town in Texas when one night one of the guys pulled the fryer out to clean behind it well he yanked on it too hard and it ripped the gas hose off the connection to the wall. I swear to god 6 guys saw fire spurt out of the valve and immediate dropped everything and ran for the hills. I saw that the valve wasn't damaged in anyway so I calmly walked over and turned off the valve the fire went out and the disaster was averted. I couldn't believe how everyone else just panicked instead of taking the logical easiest path to put out the fire. I'm just glad no one pulled the Ansul fire foam system that would have cost the store 20k and we would have spent two days cleaning the inside of the kitchen out.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^PlayhousePals:
>> ^Stingray:
Fire extinguishers: Not just ornaments

It appeared that the guy near the end was using the contents of a gas can to extinguish the flames. A fail all around if that were true =oD

I'll assume this is sarcasm that didn't translate well across the Internet--it was water, the stuff you use to wash off your windows with--which is ALSO found RIGHT NEXT TO all the man-made flames and fuel for cars--BTW did you know fuel vapor is pretty nasty--I swear eia is just not enough sometimes.
Fires (and any other such similar event were an emergency is involved) while active creates apparently, an atmospheric anomaly that causes--from what I've noticed in these situations--a strange and sudden affliction that seems to afflict the human nervous system in roughly 95% of the population (some of you may think I'm being TOO generous) it has these noticeable effects: mass stupidity, mass standing comatose adult/children (like deer in headlights), GRABBING THEIR FUCKING cellphone to video it, calling anyone but 911, calling 911 when the situation could have been averted for atleast a minute (sometimes more, MUCH MORE--it can get ridiculous) by them doing a small innocuous measure--but the measure is: beneath them, might get them dirty, they may get close to "the action", they could injury themselves requiring a band-aid; and so, so, so, so, so, many other things that could be listed, but you really can just go to the Failblog and look around and find one thousand examples I don't have here. But this 95% always does the things I listed above and do similar ridiculous actions OTHER THAN stopping the problem! It really is quite amusing and it's also why we've got the term "hero". Hero really should read:
Hero: The person that finally decided to resolve a problem when everyone else decided it was better to journal about it. You get my drift... Yes, there is the "real" hero out there, but they typically have other things that show that they are, like undying loyalty from their followers or getting the Medal of Honor--that type of thing.
This window washing water can be found in large containers, like the one he was carrying to put the fire out, around EVERY single station (typically, sometimes there are even WATER HOSES in the middle). Atleast ONE person was paying attention and put the fire out on both the fuel hose and the gas tank (it looked like he got them out--with a little bucket of water...well used if I might say). He is a minor hero, but he's one of those people that solves an emergency put before a group of people, and decidedly did not take photos first.
Just felt like the man deserved some credit, so I decided to have someone say something good about him (me ); since it's mostly about the idiot eia douche who RAN to find help from the store manager, running RIGHT PAST the fire extinguisher--fucking poetic and on camera. That guy will NEVER live this down...
I'm ALSO assuming he did panic and run into the store to find the clerk, rather than just running away, BUT people HAVE done that... ((Benefit of doubt for this eia, I guess...)

You can make it as convoluted as you like..in the end, it is all either the product of design or chance. If you disagree, come up with an alternative.


I apparently haven't been clear in what I'm trying to say.

The existence of "anything" isn't design or chance or anything like that - those are the wrong kinds of concepts for answering the fundamental question. Design and chance and other "ways to summarize operations" (see also: decay or evolution) can get moving once we've instantiated "something" - but to start with our options are "arbitrary", "arbitrary" or "more arbitrary". If there's always been an eternal God, that's arbitrary. If the universe is some cycle of foam and explosions then that's arbitrary.

Maybe a simpler example: the universe could have sprung into existence in 2011 at that current state. I can't imagine evidence to the contrary. What is the reason I don't believe that? Because it's more arbitrary than other possibilities. That's part of why someone might accept evolution; it seems very arbitrary that all these animals should just happen to exist - it requires less arbitrariness if somehow all of these creatures could have come from a smaller set of simple ones.

Similarly, having a God reduces the number of things we have to start with. All you need is one thing: God. Then, by his desires and actions, you get all the other stuff for free, without having to assume in more things. God is a better explanation than having all things start at their 2011 state, partially because it requires far fewer arbitrary assumptions (just one big one).

I'll also say that you're putting way too much stock in "chance". Science currently sees a certain amount of true randomness in the operation of physics, but the gross physical mechanisms involved in, for example, evolution are not precluded by a fully deterministic universe. The world (or a world very similar to ours) could be explained by an arbitrary start state and arbitrary deterministic rules without chance being involved at all. Again, I don't think "chance" is a terribly useful concept for this discussion.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

No, because God has given me sufficient evidence that I can be certain of it. A person receiving absolute confirmation of Gods existence has a justified true belief in God, regardless of what someone who has no such revelation perceives as reasonable. Indeed, a person on the outside of this revelation is irrational and incapable of determining what truth is.


I was using the term "possible" to mean "not absolutely impossible". I think perhaps you're using the word "certain" in a less absolute way.

For example, I'm certain about my phone number. I'm more certain that, for example, I have been alive for longer than a day. But I can't absolutely certain. We can imagine a universe that is intent on tricking me about this fact - and I have no way to rule out that universe based on my experience or logic.

Similarly, my choice of question for you wasn't random or intended to be silly. Imagine a universe with more than one powerful supernatural agent (I called one a demon), some of whom were intent on deceiving humans. Their actual motivations are completely inscrutable, but for whatever reason they take some joy in tricking you into believing in God.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

(@shinyblurry)

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions

Bus drivers please note - this is only permissable if you have a foam sword attached to the front of your vehicle.

"The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity"-@shinyblurry

Since I only nitpick and I don't plan to really read a response or comment again I'll say just this:

Look up something called the "quantum foam" or "quantum spacetime". Virtual particles, zipping in and out of reality annihilating each other with extreme amounts of energy that we can barely even notice, yet there it is--literally nothing. The math side of things yells, nay, screams at us that it's there. But, they've barely yet scratched the surface of this frontier, until...

About four or five months ago (if you look on my blog I had a post about it) they literally pulled a photon from nothing! You may wish to slightly rephrase your terminology or concede that "virtual" and nothing (in this Universe anyway) are not somehow perhaps connected. Thus negating your statement as they did indeed pull a photon from essentially nothing. It could also be that the terminology of "nothing" is not an exact definition in nature, it being purely an idealogical one.

It may be, not saying it is, but just something interesting to look at and think about. BUT, I know you... ...'This does not mean this so that can not mean that so thus the Bible is correct'... Keep working it that way, it has worked so well for you on here so far. Don't try another path!

>> ^kymbos:

You're all fake!


hehe

also check this out someone already did a flapping one man flier ..probably on sift
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/human-powered-flapping-wing-plane-first-ever-to-take-flight-video/2388

"Built from carbon fiber, foam, and balsa wood, the Snowbird weighs just 94 lbs. and has a wingspan of 105 feet, which is comparable to that of a Boeing 737–amazingly, the Snowbird weighs less than all of the pillows on board.

The wings’ thrust is due primarily to a low-pressure region around the leading edge, which integrates to provide a force known as “leading-edge suction”. The wings also passively twist in response to the flapping. This is due to a structure that is torsionally compliant in just the right amount to allow efficient thrusting (”aeroelastic tailoring”). It should be noted, though, that twisting is required only to prevent flow separation on sections along the wing. It does not produce thrust in the same way as required by sharp-edged wings with little leading-edge suction."

I always hated it when I was a kid because it could never compare to the book. In the end, it was that foam tractor thing that did it. WTF was that? That was no longways-going glass elevator. In fact, I still don't like it, even if Gene Wilder is brilliant.

And yeah, I cover my eyes when they go through the tunnel in the candy boat, so what?

Believe it or not, I can personally relate to how you feel about it. I used to feel mostly the same way as someone who was previously agnostic to the idea of whether there is a supreme being or not, a Creator of the Universe. I also know why you feel you have come to a very sound conclusion about the idea, which is that you see no evidence of God or spirit. If you believe matter is all there is, it makes the existence of a supernatural Creator rather far fetched doesn't it?

Now you talk about logic, but even if you don't believe in the supernatural, there is by default no logical reason why either scenerio is more likely than the other, if you go by the initial premise that everything is equally unlikely. Why should there be something rather than nothing? That is the great question on Stephan Hawkings mind, even though he believes he can get the entire Universe from quantum foam.

These were questions I wrestled with as an agnostic. For one, I knew the limitations of our subjective perceptions. The limitations of human knowledge. It's a big Universe out there and we haven't even left our solar system yet. There are many possibilities even within the traditional secular understanding. What if life emerged on another planet far, far earlier? What would an intelligence evolving over billions of years look like? Was there a power that ruled this entire Universe? Those were just wonderings. But I found the real struggle was to objectively define truth. Any foundational truth, really. What is beauty? What is altruism? What is truth itself? 7 billion subjective perspectives does not equal one objective one. There is no way to get outside the Universe and look into it, and there is no way to go back to before it was created. These are simply the differences between relative and absolute truth.

These questions are much bigger than atheism, which is why I was agnostic. I didn't see any way I could write God off and be objective, but at the time I didn't see much reason to believe in Him either. You apparently feel differently. I'm interested to hear your logical reasons for not believing in God. A revelation that I had when I was thinking about these things was that I had entangled the concept of God with all of the religions of the world. To truly be objective, you have to look past religion, and consider the problem on just a probability basis. What is the likelyhood of any of it? You can explain it away with this and this and this happened, there was this explosion and then rocks came together and then amoebas appeared and then apes and then me, tada. You have to put all of that aside, as well as the size of the Universe, and just consider Stephan Hawkins question. Why is there something rather than nothing?

In any case, you don't see any evidence for a spirit so you are dealing with an entirely different set of parameters. For there to be a spirit you would have to deal with the fact that everything you know is in some way, wrong. You just naturally are not going to look in that direction.

The thing about God is, He isn't going to push Himself into your life. You think it's just a matter of evidence, a matter of discovering something; the truth is that to know God is not a right, it is a priviledge. You could spend 10,000 lifetimes dedicated to searching for God and you would never find Him until that moment when He chose to reveal Himself to you.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Sometimes He has mercy on atheists, like this man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4lgvZ5MCZ4

But biblically, He tells us to seek Him out. If you refuse to do that then you don't have any excuses. You've heard the truth and we are accountable to what we know. You don't feel a need for God right now but that's why we're here. God is patient, but we aren't guaranteed a single day on this planet. If you died today you would face judgement, but His mercy keeps you here that you will repent and turn from sin. So don't take your life for granted because that isn't anything we control. I say this out of love. God gives a lot of grace, and to know Jesus Christ is to know peace, and joy. It is to understand the meaning of truth, to have love, and to be free. It is to be made new. My prayer is that you, and others here, will come to know that for yourselves.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
@shinyblurry said: Fletch, you're even denial about the definition of atheism,which is the denial of any deity according to the dictionary.
Thats not how most atheists define atheism. Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in any theistic claim. There is a crucial difference. I dont "deny" any deity, that sentence doesnt even make sense to me as an atheist, any more than the sentence "The denial of any leprechaun".
You (@shinyblurry) believe in God
I dont.
Thats all there is to it.
"Not believing in god" wasnt really a conscious or deliberate decision on my part, its just "the way I am". But when i examine that position rationally and deliberately I find that it does also make more sense than believing there is a god. Can a beliver really, REALLY say the same, I wonder?

>> ^therealblankman:

It might sound odd, but I'm very passionate about shaving. I have tried everything that comes on the market, Fusion, Mach3 or whatever and they all suck donkey balls next to my single blade, double edge safety-razor, badger brush and good shaving soap. For those men who shave, especially black guys, wet-shaving simply can not be beat.
I've worn out 2 bristle brushes in 25 years of shaving. When the last needed to be replaced I treated myself to a really nice Badger hair brush- it was about $50, and is totally worth it. I'm allowed to have nice things. A five dollar bristle brush works just as well, but doesn't feel nearly as nice, nor does it make as nice a lather.
For soap Proraso Ultra-Sensitive is my current favorite. It's pretty inexpensive- a ten dollar tub lasts almost a year, and it is nicely moisturizing. Doesn't have a pretty scent, but that's okay. Not that it doesn't smell nice- it does, just not all pretty-like. I also use the standard Proraso green- it's loaded with Menthol and Eucalyptus so is really cooling on the skin- in the summer on a hot day if you use that stuff and cool water it feels like you're shaving with ice. There are some expensive luxury soaps and creams available and they are absolutely fantastic- An ex once gave me a cake of Geo F. Trumpers Limes, and I cherished that stuff for years- used it only on special occasions. You can also buy the old-standard "Mug" brand shaving soap for about one or two dollars at most drug stores- it works pretty good as well but is a little drying to the face- I keep a bar around and take it camping and backpacking.
The handle I use is a classic vintage "Improved" Gillette 3-piece screw-together safety razor dating from the 1930s, which makes it nearly 80 years old! How's that for economical? New handles are also available at specialty stores and online. The Merkur brand handles are particularly nice- I have one of those even though I still prefer the vintage Gillette. The old Gillette is also gold plated which does nothing to make the shave better but it looks cool.
As for blades, about three or four years ago I bought 400 Derby brand safety blades on Ebay for $50! I use fewer than 2 blades/week which means I've got a lot left, more than a hundred. I've also given away many packages to friends who wanted to try wet-shaving and none of them have gone back to their old (new?) ways.
Two passes gives me a clean and super-close shave, no nicks, no ingrown hairs, no burning, no bumps. Skin feels fantastic and I do very well with the ladies. Speaking of the ladies, most every woman I've been with has been very curious about the whole thing- the morning ritual with the brush, the special soaps etc. Some have even asked if they could try- which can lead to a lot of fun! Think that'll ever come about with your cheap spray-can of nasty foam or gel?
Men-do yourself a favour and throw away those over-priced mediocre multi-blade set-ups and chemical-laden skin-drying cans of shitty foam and shave like a real man. This is one thing your grandfather had right.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/688684
5/ns/today-today_weekend_edition/t/how-get-perfect-shave/#.T1aPd_Wt2nA


This was the post of the month. I saw a giant flag raising up behind you Patton style as you belted out this reference quality post.