Like I said before anything is game. Photography, doodles, objects...heck you can even slap a lable on a toaster. I guess if there isn't a lot of people with this I'll trade with everyone and they can trade with each other as they see fit.

I wonder why he's trying so hard to be funny. He mostly comes off as creepy and short of breath. I wouldn't buy a toaster from this wheezebag salesman.

And people don't 'risk their lives to get here' because they like GI Joe or fucking Rambo. They risk their lives to get here because they can make more money here. They can make enough to support a family here or back home. What a cunt.

Cheap inkjets are horrible, but try printing photos with a laser printer...
And a lot of color laser printers print tracking dots on every page you print. Yay!

Cheap b/w laser printers are ok, but if you need color don't buy the cheapest inkjet printer/scanner/fax/toaster/radio all-in-one POS you find, spend a little extra cash on a proper inkjet printer (without a ton of built-in crap).

Fox serves many of there interests all at once. They get to air the video for sex appeal and ratings, they get to complain about the video for shock, outrage and yet again, ratings. They even get to have a some privacy lawyer that doesn't know the internet from a toaster to promote internet censorship laws for the benefit of the corporate network masters. All in a days work.

Toaster Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq4ojUJ-jwE

>> ^mentality:
>> ^rychan:
yes, per mile a commercial airliner is safer, but that's a stupid statistic. Per mile being an astronaut is extraordinarily safe, but in actuality it's outrageously dangerous.
Say you're traveling from NYC to LA. You can either drive there, or you can fly there in one trip. Which is safer? Flying would be safer, because you have to physically cover the distance from point A to point B, and you said flying is safer according to distance.
A space shuttle "travels" many miles with respect to earth as it stays in orbit. Comparing the distance a shuttle "travels" to distance covered intentionally between two terrestrial locations is a stupid point to make.
I can tell you that water has a very low electrical conductivity, but you wouldn't want to get into a bathtub with a toaster -- and rightly so, because it turns out that the dissolved minerals in tap water raise its conductivity several orders of magnitude.
Guess what also tells you that getting into a bathtub with a toaster is dangerous because water with ions in it conducts? Science.
I really don't get the point that you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that the implementation of science is scary because statistics can be manipulated to show that cars are safer than planes or vice versa; or that a toaster in bathwater is bad? Or are you saying that applied science is scary because it cannot eliminate risk, only greatly reduce it? For example, your risk of dying from not performing the procedure would be far greater than the risk of dying from the anesthetics.


People don't think about distances when they step on a plane. They think "am I going to step off this plane alive?". The fact that the planes are covering more distance is as inconsequential as the spacecraft covering more distance. The fact that it would be even more dangerous to spend two full days driving the distance is inconsequential. They're stepping into a situation an order of magnitude more dangerous than when they step into their average car trip, so they're right to be scared. Of course, that fear is more based on lack of control and discomfort than statistics, but I hate people who try and calm you with statistics, because they're not strongly on the side of airplanes.

I'm saying science is great and reproducible, our human interface with science is often unreliable, because the real world and the human body have thousands of variables that science can't account for. And for that reason I'd be hesitant to test something like the Leidenfrost effect by dipping my hand in liquid Nitrogen (if I hadn't seen someone else do it, or maybe even then). Who knows, maybe if you sweat a lot and your skin is salty, if you have on nail polish, if you have on rings, etc... then something goes terribly wrong.

>> ^rychan:
yes, per mile a commercial airliner is safer, but that's a stupid statistic. Per mile being an astronaut is extraordinarily safe, but in actuality it's outrageously dangerous.

Say you're traveling from NYC to LA. You can either drive there, or you can fly there in one trip. Which is safer? Flying would be safer, because you have to physically cover the distance from point A to point B, and you said flying is safer according to distance.

A space shuttle "travels" many miles with respect to earth as it stays in orbit. Comparing the distance a shuttle "travels" to distance covered intentionally between two terrestrial locations is a stupid point to make.

I can tell you that water has a very low electrical conductivity, but you wouldn't want to get into a bathtub with a toaster -- and rightly so, because it turns out that the dissolved minerals in tap water raise its conductivity several orders of magnitude.

Guess what also tells you that getting into a bathtub with a toaster is dangerous because water with ions in it conducts? Science.

I really don't get the point that you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that the implementation of science is scary because statistics can be manipulated to show that cars are safer than planes or vice versa; or that a toaster in bathwater is bad? Or are you saying that applied science is scary because it cannot eliminate risk, only greatly reduce it? For example, your risk of dying from not performing the procedure would be far greater than the risk of dying from the anesthetics.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
That is the power of science!, you trust it every time you step on a plane or willingly let others perform surgery on vital parts of your body. This is what separates it from meaningless mantras like "faith" or "other ways of knowing": It is something you can reliably believe in, and it provides a true "way of knowing", not because scientists are smarter or more reliable than priests, but because they know that they aren't, so they put their own ideas to the test, and they are happy if people can prove them wrong. Because our intuition is often so very wrong, we need science to look deeper into it. And it works.


But the scary thing isn't the science, it's the implementation details.

I can tell you that water has a very low electrical conductivity, but you wouldn't want to get into a bathtub with a toaster -- and rightly so, because it turns out that the dissolved minerals in tap water raise its conductivity several orders of magnitude.

Once you encounter engineered systems of moderate complexity, you can't trust the simple scientific principles too much. And there's no more complex, engineered system than the human body.

So what I'm saying is, you're justified to be scared stepping into a commercial airliner. You're three times more likely to die on that plane trip than you are on your average car trip. If you're a safe, defensive driver, then a plane trip is ten times as dangerous.*

5 to 6 out of a million otherwise healthy people who go under general anesthesia will die. That number was 20 times higher in the '50s, but it's still scary.

* yes, per mile a commercial airliner is safer, but that's a stupid statistic. Per mile being an astronaut is extraordinarily safe, but in actuality it's outrageously dangerous. Per hour, the average commercial airliner is four times as safe as the average car, BUT, I don't drive the average car (I'm very safe, never drink and drive, always pay attention) but I DO have to fly the average airliner, with no control over who is flying, whether we should wait out the thunderstorm, or how well the maintenance was carried out.

You guys have it all wrong. What we need to do, is:
-Check for the presence of any evil guy paintings in the closest museum.
-Get a sample of the slime monster and put it in a toaster to make it dance.
-Then, of course, hose down Dan Aykroyd with it.

They were talking about this on last week's show while discussing SkyMall magazine. One of them imagined a giant sky mall warehouse somewhere in the middle of America, filled with hot dog toasters and speakers that look like rocks.

BTW, these guys do a very funny video game podcast.

Had myself an Amiga 3000 at one point. My mom wanted to start a video production business so the thing was loaded. Video Toaster, Lightwave, Deluxe Paint IV, DTV, sound editing software (can't remember the name), etc, etc.

...and of course, Shadow of the Beast III.

Sadly, the business never got off the ground and I learned my first real lesson in computer depreciation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'noteboek, notebook, computer, scanner, copier, mirror, food, toaster, netherlands' to 'noteboek, notebook, computer, scanner, copier, mirror, food, toaster, Evelien Lohbeck' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Groovy Dancing Girl, sophie merry, rotoscope, iPod, Bandy Toaster, irish, ireland' to 'Groovy Dancing Girl, sophie merry, rotoscope, iPod, Bandy Toaster, irish, justice, 00s' - edited by Eklek

^And if we lived in a culture that encouraged us to listen to toasters, that would be all the more likely.

This had nothing to do with religion. This woman was insane, and she would have done the same thing if a toaster told her to do so.