X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
rychan Member Profile  Member Since: 2007-06-20 Last Power Points used: never • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 482 Rating: 22 star points Votes Received: 439 Average Votes Per Video: 27.44 Votes Cast: 1044 Comments Posted: 774 • browse Comments Applauded: 16 Sifted Videos: 16 Dead Pool Fixes: 6 Profile Views: 4844 Highest Ranked Comments Member's Highest Rated Videos |
Videos Submitted by rychan
http://videosift.com/video/Jay-Leno-Interview-and-Lap-on-Top-Gear
In reply to this comment by rychan:
I'd love to see more Americans going on Top Gear. That was great.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
And another expert says it's NOT Bryozoan:
"Dr. Timothy S. Wood who is an expert on freshwater bryozoa and an officer with the International Bryozoology Association. I sent along the video and this was his reponse…
Thanks for the video – I had not see it before. No, these are not bryozoans! They are clumps of annelid worms, almost certainly tubificids (Naididae, probably genus Tubifex). Normally these occur in soil and sediment, especially at the bottom and edges of polluted streams. In the photo they have apparently entered a pipeline somehow, and in the absence of soil they are coiling around each other. The contractions you see are the result of a single worm contracting and then stimulating all the others to do the same almost simultaneously, so it looks like a single big muscle contracting. Interesting video."
This video makes it a little more believable that it could be a clump of these worms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn9kh7MaFQQ&
if you imagine that they would look deflated and slimy when the water in the pipe is drained.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
Not to be a curmudgeon, but this is just slowed-down broadcast footage (the Youtube description says as much). There's no information here that you don't get from watching it in real time. I was hoping this was shot with a 1000fps camera or something.
the fact remains one day it could be possible somehow with a different approach... and the links i gave on sensor and recording technology are to that end.
that's the only approach i see besides some other really wacky nonsense idea about metadata/gps/cctv i have... but ive said too much!
In reply to this comment by rychan:
vairetube: Yes, there's a lot of cool research in computer vision, computer graphics, and computational photography. But it's pretty simple to say, in an information theoretical sense, that this CSI stuff is impossible.
Yes you could hallucinate plausible image content (super-resolution), but clearly that's not appropriate for a forensic setting.
But in this case we have a quantized, noisy, low resolution signal and the reflection in the eye could have been generated by any number of incident signals and it wouldn't make a difference in the recorded video signal. The information just isn't there.
Prequels? What are you smoking; Lucas died in '83.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
The acting was indeed terrible, but I still think all three of these movies were 90% of the way to being really excellent, if someone could have just told George Lucas which of his ideas were terrible. And obviously someone else should have directed.
The terrible acting and dialogue from that kid, from Jar-Jar, and even from Natalie Portman just cancel out all of the "wow cool" stuff that is legitimately there.
i would love to see some studies about message therapy. its probaby difficult because the vast majority of massage therapists are independent and self employed, the vast majority are undereducated, and medical science has been resistant to embrace it as something that can legitmately improve your wellbeing, i suspect because it is not profitable to them, because therapists are independent and self employed.
i do not think enough education is required to become a massage therapist, as for myself, i already had a degree in radiological technology before i went to massage school and had spent 7 years studying the body from a medical/ scientific perspective. i think higher standards of training would improve the legitimacy of the field and the quality of care. but, i stand by my assertion that massage is rooted in phsyiology and when properly applied can greatly improve well being and prevent a plethora of illnesses. i will defend it to the death!
In reply to this comment by rychan:
>> ^peggedbea:
anyhow, its always good to flush your body of toxins
I upvoted your commented. But I don't agree that it's necessarily good to have a medical intervention to "flush your body of toxins" rather than letting the natural processes play out. I'm not about to go on dialysis to help flush out my toxins when I'm perfectly healthy. I realize that's an exaggerated parallel and that this massage is probably harmless, but I'd like to see some peer-reviewed studies on the matter. You've made an appeal that massage therapy is not junk science, and controlled, randomized, double blind, peer-reviewed trials are the way to prove that.
I realize that the "blind" part of such trials would be difficult in this case, but you can still have it single blind with a proxy intervention that is known to be worthless. Say you're treating them with magnets but actually do nothing.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
Can someone tell me if this spoils anything in the movies?
>> ^GabaJ:
I have a question for the physicists - what would happen to an object thrown perpendicular to your orbit down toward earth? Disregard atmospheric drag. After one orbit, would that object come back up towards you as fast as you chucked it?
Good question.
Assumption: you don't throw it far enough towards Earth for atmospheric drag to matter, and you are more massive than the object.
my answer: I don't think so, and it's not a simple matter. Lets say you were in a perfectly circular orbit. You throw the object down and now it's in an eccentric orbit (and so are you, for that matter). It no longer has the same orbital period as you, because it has a longer semi-major axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis) which means it has a slower orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period)
I could be wrong, though.
Thank you for your thoughts. After additional consideration this is what I think would happen: The fastest you could throw an object while in a space suit and anchored to the space station is maybe 20 or 30 miles per hour. As you say, this would put it in an elliptical orbit. If the station orbits once every 90 minutes in a circular orbit, then the object would go straight down and a little ahead as it picks up speed, but only for about 20 some minutes and 10, 15 miles. (this is the part I can't calculate) After half an orbit it would come back up and miss you because no one could throw so accuaretly that they can hit something 30 miles away. Then after one full orbit, it would come back from "above". and so on...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Improbable-catch-by-Packer-Antonio-Freeman