Things i noticed
1. Cool design
2. Nasty exhaust
3. Fancy neighborhood

New series of Robot Wars here after god knows how many years. I loved that show when I was a kid.

Hammers never seemed that effective. For destruction the flywheel type weapons always performed best, but my favorite was this nasty looking creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtrUn3DmY

I bet that's all sewage. Nasty.

We have the enormous misfortune in the UK to live in a democracy; how could it not? As more people from, effectively, the past enter the country the progress we've been making will be slowed or reversed.

Western, or probably more specifically north-western europe is that special region in the world where religion is actually dying off. More people in the UK are non-religious than religious. Christians in this country finally have the decency to be ashamed of their faith, and any extravagant public expression of belief is met with contempt from believers and non-believers alike - look at the minor scandal created when Tony Blair admitted to being a catholic, and engaging in such outlandish behaviours as prayer.

Orthodox christians from easten europe, and refugees from even less civilised areas, haven't had the opportunity to develop the same attitude. As they settle in their nasty little insular communities, the danger is that they're in a position to act as voting blocs that damage public policy.

Anyway, I'm sure it's heartening for eric to discover that basically none of us has any idea either.

Thanks for the promote, and for pointing me to the video in the first place. That's one nasty tree.

Thinking further, the use of chemicals and fertilizers in orchards is more different than I'd first thought too.

If you take an apple orchard, every plant is priceless compared to a grain crop. Killing off insects, keeping exactly the right fertilizer amounts and irrigation are all absolutely required. In grain farming, pests like weeds or insects are measured and the cost/benefit is weighed to see if it's worth the cost of spraying. I'd imagine with a fruit crop, the benefit is almost always keeping your plants as healthy as humanly possible. With grains though guys will often estimate a 5% loss from whatever best is there and decide to leave well enough alone.

A bit of a side note, but the kinds of chemicals guys on the grain side use has changed a lot too. Plenty of chemicals used for killing insects when I was a kid where being replaced then. Farmers here universally remember a laundry list of different pesticides they remember as just nasty and downright scary stuff. The ones available today are far more selective, and for weeds round-up ready has allowed guys to abandon pretty much all other weed killers, and most of those were much more expensive and lingering than round-up.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

So. How does this stop the nasty family pestering her for the fortune exactly?

The MSM excuse why Sanders polls better than her against Trump is that he hasn't been victim of an organized attack campaign. I say, look at the above, neither has Clinton.

She's going to get crushed. Doubly so if the e-mail investigation turns up anything nasty.

Look at the atrophy of her leg muscles (flat on her back for a month in a cast) and the nasty purple scar along her back at the :44 second mark---about lumbar spine. Looks like she got a set of steel rods on either side of her crushed vertebrae.

You're right; she didn't sever her spinal cord; but she's still lost muscle and has to bring the strength and power back to her back, and develop the ability to start standing again---and the water, I think, floats her to take most of the weight off as she starts to move...

But I could be wrong.

Hmmm. I would wager that while H2O2 might not be necessary (maybe not even beneficial at all) in the large majority of cuts and scrapes, if you happen to get cut or scraped by something that happens to have some particularly nasty bacteria on it, it is probably better to attempt to kill that stuff off, even though it is also doing some damage to healthy cells also.

And the amount of damage to healthy cells might be so small that it is worth using the H2O2 most of the time just on the off chance that some particularly nasty and resistant bacteria got in there.

But to be fair, that balance (small chance of particularly nasty bacteria vs guaranteed but negligible "damage" to healthy cells) is probably close enough that there are rational arguments either direction.

And no offense to SciShow, but I think that if anyone was going to sway my opinion on this one way or the other, it should be an actual *doctor* that brings up clinical trials -- maybe a Healthcare Triage video or something...

Ugh! The 'baptism' ruins the entire thing. Who wants to put something covered in someone else's slobber in their mouths?
That's nasty!

Aside from annexing your lands and turning them into leisure worlds for retired Legionnaires, they also brought central heating, exotic goods, plumbing, roads, law, order, popular clothing styles -- but only for the wealthy -- and at the cost of maybe raping your children to teach your village a lesson to obey Roman rule.

Generations later hardly anyone even remembers and you're now part of the empire. And when you're invaded by other "barbarians" your ancestors will protect their Roman culture as if it were always theirs to enjoy. Fight the other barbarians for us, you barbarian!!

You almost get the feeling they defined the entire future of western civilization. Every nasty bit; confusingly superior customs that are required otherwise you become a slave -- and maybe you'll become a slave anyway, even if you follow the rules. After all, once a bitch, always a bitch and so an entire legion slowly blots out your cultural and genetic existence.

Yay, Roman Empire!

Are you used to people taking your argument seriously when you refer to them as "bed wetting cry babies"?

And when you bring up Suey Park as a " harassment vs ridicule " argument, you conveniently leave out the death and rape threats.

If you think someone saying "that word bothers me" is making it "unacceptable to say words", by all means: die on the hill that words have no power and any word is fine, language and sensibility doesn't change with time.

I look forward to you adding: faggot, nigger, kyke, whatever other bit of nasty language you can imagine to your daily vocab and get incredibly bent out of shape about your free speech and ability to use what words you want without offense when someone says they're offended by that.

And I think I do understand about comedians being thin skinned. Because someone saying "that's offensive to me" sends them (and you, apparently) into a death spiral of hyperbole, calling people cunts and babies, and likening them to the gestapo.

Me thinks you've been "triggered".

But hey, since you seem less interested in rationale and more about getting red, nude, and mad online, I'll let you have whatever last word you're going to scream at me after this.