Aaaaaaahahaha! Good one Bob. The pot calling the glass vase black, I think.

It's a multi state fire, NPR is an appropriate source that actually investigates and had published an article on the exact topic with interviews and quotes from local officials. You made baseless claims about Oregon in your question about California, so local news sources wouldn't be a good source, and they also don't indicate any local forest fires are arson.

Archived from when and where? You know I'm not using your links, you have linked to virus hosts more than once. As a likely Russian operative, no one should trust any link you post. I certainly won't. Bobski #3,5,6,7,12,14,17, and 21 have been told this, you guys need to talk to each other.

We're talking about fires that started in the last month, not over decades. You don't need archived articles for that, so I'll assume these are years or decades of news story/records, the only date listed is 2014 in Ferguson, so massive propaganda FAIL Bob.

🤦‍♂️

You don't think that has anything to do with the biased garbage you watch? I've seen every Democrat (politician) ever asked about the tax bill admit it benefits them, including Obama and Clinton.

Remember the last 6 months of "I pay more under this plan, it doesn't benefit me at all." ? You enjoy being completely lied to about a $1.5 Trillion a year handout to billionaires? So, Obama's problem was he wasn't rich or dishonest enough for you?

Democrats say it's financial Armageddon because handing over $1.5TRILLION per year to a hand full of hyper rich people when we already had a huge deficit is exactly that.
It's odd, (not really, it's typical Bob) I recall you and the right screaming Armageddon every time Obama passed a bill, and claiming he doubled the debt/deficit in his first term....clearly that was a racist ruse and financial responsibility is not an issue for you, because this single law costs far more than even you claimed Obama spent, a number that had you frothing at the mouth with rage, and is designed to benefit a single family...Trump's.

Bob...you admitted he's an unqualified liar who cannot get anything done, then you counter yourself with " Trump is kicking ass, making America greater this year even being dogged every day" Stop being idiotic and pretending you actually have a real opinion, you're obviously just trolling when you spout this nonsense, and it makes you look moronic.

I have no kids, and don't itemize, my tax rate goes UP under this law, so I probably pay more. This isn't the "pay your taxes on a postcard" promise kept, this adds serious complexity to the tax code, it doesn't simplify it. They admitted that, can't you?

Jesus fucking Christ, this single bill adds $15 Trillion to the debt over 10 years, so yes, let's be fair. For 2016, the deficit is expected to be approximately $590 billion, in 2020 that's now $2.09 Trillion...assuming Trump doesn't steal more for himself. Had Obama not increased the military budget by over $100 Billion (contrary to all right wing liars who falsely claim he shrunk it) in an effort to gain bipartisan support for his plans (a fool's errand) he would have actually SHRUNK the deficit. Clinton actually lowered the debt, erasing the deficit until your guy, Bush, turned us around bigly.

Only Americans who make over $150k a year will benefit financially...in the short term. When they have to pay for massive amounts of private security, private roads, water treatment, etc, and the country becomes Chinese (purchased and by force, with no allies left to help us, and China aligned with Russia, we're toast).
The "vase majority" of America might benefit, but the vast majority of Americans will pay dearly, as will the nation as a whole.

Sore looser? Compared to your (and the right's) treatment of Obama, I'm a trump supporter.
Stop trolling, you sound like a 4 year old ...lies, excuses, reversals, nonsense, misdirection, and high praise for a moron....not a good look, buddy. If Trump is kicking ass, it's for Russia and China, not us. Made us greater, by raising the debt and deficit by up to 400% with a single move and losing our international standing and allies. Dogged every day?....Not compared to Obama. Recall, instead of legislating, Republican leadership said 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.', acted upon by being the most obstructionist and disrespectful congress in modern history.... during wartime, and not ending at the borders either. Better to hate Democrats than love America....morons and traitors, the lot of you.

I have yet to see any video of Democrats saying they will benefit from the tax cuts. Democrats just say its Armageddon and its not. Lets be real. They will benefit, just like Trump.

Trump is kicking ass, making America greater this year even being dogged every day.

Hillary would not even come close.

Be thankful for you 12 / 24 k base of non taxable income. Better than keeping records all year then having to prove you are worthy of the deduction.

Stop being such a sore loser.

"and every American citizen because it bankrupts the nation" ? Where were you the last POTUS / house /senate added 10 Trillion of actual debt added.
Come on newt I know we are both biased but at least be fair.

The vase majority of Americans will benefit.

The pond water circulates through the open bottom, so the O2 levels are the same as the pond.
Yes, mine got dirty and had to be removed and cleaned monthly. Since the fish didn't use it, that only lasted 3-4 months before I gave up. I used a tall glass vase about 10-12" wide and 2 1/2' tall. Maybe if I put floating food in it they'll use it, I'll probably try again when the water is warm enough to go in the pond and set it up, they look neat.

I'd guess that it would cause warping as the structure got bigger, they need the previous layers to cool rapidly to prevent deformation (although the previous layer needs to be hot enough to get a good water tight bond). Coming up with the right temp so that it forms a seamless flat surface would be difficult without causing running.

Not to be "that guy" (okay, what the hell, I love being "that guy") but aside from arty stuff, light shades, the aforementioned ashtrays and perhaps some really funky vases/glasses, this really seems to be limited by the method of extrusion and the refraction caused by having so many curved surfaces throughout the piece.

Some imprecise, false and misleading statements and baseless assertions in the video that are cogent to the argument:

0:20 "Scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have been dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

Imprecise. The highlighted bit implies that scientists have discovered an agent who did the "dialing", which is not the case. Rather, scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have values that fall within extremely narrow life-permitting ranges."

2:24 "... these and other numbers have been exquisitely balanced ...

Imprecise. Again, you cannot claim that they "have been balanced" without tautologically claiming a designer.

3:55 "The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

Assertion. For this statement to be true, someone would have to define when a probability becomes "too remote". We're talking about something that we don't understand, so it's not possible to determine that it is "too remote".

4:03 "So, in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science..."

Imprecise. Nobody decided the Multiverse was a good way to explain the appearance of fine tuning. The Multiverse arises unbidden out of other theories of mathematics, with the effect of making chance quite a viable possibility.

4:35 "... and this universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

False. A machine making massive numbers of universes only has to create one with our balance of numbers one time. If I can shoot a billion arrows at a target, I can afford for the sights on my bow to be much less finely tuned than if I only have one arrow, and if I have an infinite number of arrows, I don't need any fine tuning at all. I can shoot in random directions and be assured that I will hit the target by pure chance.

The chart about high and low order universes

False. A small universe with a single observer may be more likely, and may also exist in addition to our own. The fact that our universe is vast (relative to what, exactly?) doesn't mean others don't also exist.

AND Imprecise. You cannot measure the creation of universes on a time line. Time is created within our universe.

4:55: "... a vast, spectacularly complex, highly ordered universe ...

Assertion. Vase, complex and ordered in comparison to what? We don't know if ours is very complex compared to how complex a universe could be.

5:05: "So, even if the Multiverse existed ... it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine tuning."

False. That's exactly what it would do, or at least it would easily explain away the appearance of fine tuning as random chance.

AND Misleading. It should be phrased, "... to explain the appearance of fine tuning," which is what we're trying to explain.

If only wishing or ignorance made reality go away. I suppose to manipulate that old picture of your parents you can just go to the magically internet repository with their high quality 3d models stored in it? Or you pet cat with the funny tail, or the tree in front of your house? Or the custom carved vase?

When you actually go try and match high quality 3d models to real world objects you quickly discover just how many are unique and hard to find.

Don't like those cats that have no ears, selective breeding gone too far. I mean, regular cats usually look like a little bit on the douche side but still cute, they got that independent charm, a bit of wild animal.. This breed just looks like it's selfish pampered a-hole (note, looks like not that they actually are..). The kind that looks at you when it is walking on the shelf he knows perfectly well he should not be and slowly drops that vase..

Neat and skillful, but I really was hoping for some tricky geometry to spin a square vase on the wheel.

it's a vase... had to get the scale after seeing her hands.

Mr.Bennitt is correct, there really is no need to panic. Bet that vase/paper towel fella never followed ants around with a magnifier, either!

Happened to a neighbor of mine when I was a kid.
He had a vase of water in the windowsill and a roll of paper towels behind it. Luckily, I saw the smoke, and he only lost part of his kitchen.

That has to be a sound effect at the end of the video. Unless there was a pyramid of thinly crafted vases at the bottom of that hatch. Doubtful.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fat cat, pot' to 'fat cat, pot, vase' - edited by calvados

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth.
I haven't watched the documentary you linked, but the only part of what you said I'd really contest is this part.
How is fiat currency reliant on growth?
Perhaps you meant it the other way around -- that fiat currency is just one more tool that's used to cajole the human race into participating in this "growth" whose value has become increasingly dubious?
That's how I see it, at least on the days when I see the face and not the vase. Most days I still see markets and capitalism as a positive net influence on the welfare of the human race, but their most fervent advocates sure do work hard at making me think otherwise.


Yeah, well put rearding the "fervent advocates". I did kind of mean it the other way around. Thank you for actually taking a second to understand my meaning rather than arguing literal points only (the literal-only thing being my definition for nerdiness).

It's not fiat currency alone that makes our economy reliant on growth. I should have been more specific, but such is life when you have to get to sleep...haha. Fiat currency just a part of the whole Fractional Reserve banking + legal tender law + fiat currency system. In my mind, the growth thing is probably tied most to the fractional reserve system. Hopefully none of this sounds condescending because I'm not sure how much of this you already know, but here's my understanding:

Because the money supply is variable and dependent on debt, an expanding economy is extremely good and a contracting one is extremely bad. Because banks are allowed to loan more money than they possess *and* charge interest, you run into a problem. Where do individuals get the money needed to pay the interest on their loan if it was created from nothing? You have to get it from the overall money supply, which is made up of money created by banks from other peoples' promises to pay.

Thus, with every new credit card swipe, mortgage signing, etc, more money is owed to banks than actually exists at any given time. It's only the time lag between borrowing and repayment that keeps the entire system from collapsing. This means that unless the total amount of debt continually increases at a sufficient rate, it's impossible for everyone to succeed in paying back their loans...there must be foreclosures. This is why people constantly get offers of new credit, *and* why recessions are such a bitch. It's very hard to get things growing again after the money supply decreases.

The system is also one in which individuals paying off debts have more money (less income goes to paying interest), but everyone paying off their debts leaves society with no money. Therefore, anyone who pays off their debt to increase their own personal financial security actually hurts the overall economy. It makes no sense for markets to rely on rational individuals' decisions if their individual decisions are bad for the economy in aggregate. For this reason alone, the system is extremely fragile.

Hope all that makes some sort of sense. Maybe I'm wrong in parts. I'm partially regurgitating the videos I linked earlier while adding in stuff I've learned from other sources. I've nor heard anyone refute the premise of the video, but I'm sure it's not infallible in its interpretation. I'd love to hear what other people think. It got sifted long ago but there was little discussion.

As for your comments about markets being a net positive, I don't disagree with you at all. It's when people rely on markets to solve every problem (including moral ones) and don't realize that there are some places markets ought not go that there becomes a problem. (Should courts enforce a custody contract between an infertile couple and a surrogate mother? ...and and endless list of other similar questions)