Yup, my PC has that attitude too. Loves Microsoft, hates me.

A friend of mine works as an engineer for Vestas, whose windmill you see here. He knew all about this incident. What happened here is that the internal gears had been stripped so there was no break and also the generator was disengaged, so no electricity either. That's why it's free to spin so fast. It took many hours for the blades to pick up that much speed. They knew it might fail and had plenty of time so they set up a camera capture it, but it wasn't an intentional test.

^--- I DEMAND THAT YOU UPVOTE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT.

Wow, fantastic video quality. HD indeed.

Also a favorite of mine. Good choice!


In reply to this comment by anti-mammon:
i really liked Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas i tought it was as close to the book as it could get.I also really identified with a lot of that movie! Ahhh... memories...

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Pretty sure this is a Dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/I-am-Legend-Alternative-Ending
Except that embed stopped working.


Yeah, that must be the same clip, but since it's dead I guess I'll keep this one up for now(?)

>> ^Xax:It's been a while since I've seen the movie, and I don't mind saying that I don't understand this ending. What was evil about what he was doing? Wasn't he searching for a cure?


Yeah, but to the zombies he would have seemed evil because he was constantly kidnapping and experimenting on them. He explicitly justifies this by claiming that they have no minds or human emotions at all, even though they end up setting sophisticated traps for him and the "leader" here is obviously upset about the kidnapping of the one specific girl. The signs are there, but he refuses to recognize them. The point is that the situation is more morally ambiguous that it seems at first.

See also the synopsis of the original story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_legend

>> ^Hive13:
This isn't how it was supposed to end AT ALL...

I didn't mean to say that this clip shows how the story ended, but that it highlights a main theme of the original story, which was then lost when the scene was removed from the film adaptation (where this scene would have appeared at the end). But alas, your suspicions are correct--I haven't actually read the original story. Thanks for the recommendation (Lithic too), I'll try to check it out.

It pretty much goes without saying that movie adaptations are almost always weak compared to the originals. Even one of my favorites, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", is a movie that I like basically as much as the book, but still does not replace the book. The book, for example, is told from the point of view of the mute Indian--a pretty central concept that the movie dispenses of entirely.

Anybody else have a favorite screen adaptation? (poor adaptions are simply too numerous to name...)

I just watched about 20 political videos on this site. And after that, the title of this one could have been "Craig Ferguson Reads My Mind".

Wow! Another promote from Jonny! I must owe you like 10 stars by now...

I think that was my very first attempted sift. Always wondered why it never made it, since I think it's quite cool.



In reply to this comment by jonny:
*promote

imstellar28:

You seem easily confused, so I will type more slowly. When I quote your post and ask what you mean by freedom, I am asking what you mean in the context of your statement, not for a dictionary definition and a list of grievances. You claim that more freedom will improve health care. I mean to ask how, but the only part of your response that is relevant to health care is your complaint that the government acts to restrict the rights of random individuals to do surgery. You are right that I am not an expert in economics, but that does not sound like a better health-care solution.

You imply that I do not think for myself, but I am curious, in what ways do you disagree with Ayn Rand?

[deleted, redundant...]

>> ^imstellar28:
... americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

^imstellar28:
... can we agree that the only way to increase the standard of living (and thus have better healthcare, education, etc.) is to increase wealth, and the only way to increase wealth is to increase production?

few things are better at increasing production than an individual free to work hard and have his hard work rewarded with profit and his bad decisions punished by financial loss. if you could get paid the same salary while working less, wouldn't you? essentially thats what you get when you have state run programs.

when you take money from one person, and give it to another you aren't increasing production or the generation of wealth, in fact in most cases you will actually be decreasing production--and thus over the long run reducing the standard of living of everyone involved.


What do you mean by freedom? In what way are you being oppressed right now? I suppose you mean that taxes are oppressing you now and freedom is what you get when you pay no taxes.

You could find out right now what you'd get if you payed no taxes. Do the math, add that to your take home pay and then look at somebody who already has that take-home pay now. There is a good chance that that person is your boss. Is she more free than you? Is her quality of life better than yours in any important way? Is she less in debt? Does she fight with her spouse less often or less bitterly? Does she enjoy better health care protection? Is she any less beholden to her employer to maintain even that level of security? Does she get better sex? And for that matter, is anything more being produced? You're job is still the same so you aren't any more productive. Where does the extra productivity come from? In fact, you claim that you--and in your opinion, everybody--would work less right now if they could do so for the same pay. If that were true, then eliminating income taxes would suddenly motivate everyone to cut down their working hours to match their previous income levels. That would decrease production, but does improve freedom except that you'll need that extra money to buy things that used to be provided by public services.

But that doesn't even matter because no, we cannot agree that the "only way to ... improve health care, education etc. ... is to increase production". That is begging the question and I do not concede. It is a matter of priorities whether or not those or other aspects of society are improved or not and for whom. We, as a society, could improve any of those things right now if we wanted to--there are plenty of resources to do so--but we do not.

I have a certain sympathy for Libertarian ideas, and I like the way Mr. Paul states his opinions without all the obfuscating sentimental baggage we get from most pols. But I also have many reservations. Here are couple of examples.

The thing that worries me about Libertarians promoting nuclear energy is that that I assume they mean a 100% unregulated nuclear industry. It seems dangerously naive to assume that the small circle of people in charge of any given plant would have any free-market motivation at all to embrace the extra expense of safely disposing of the nuclear waste. They are more likely to find ways to justify to themselves that a "sweep it under the carpet" type solution will be just fine so long as they maintain the right to collect the profits at the end of each year. Then, after many years of neglect, with all the profits having been spent and the perpetrators safely retired, we get permanent radio active disaster areas popping up all over the place. I don't see how the free market is going to help at all at that point. There is no profit associated with cleaning up nuclear disaster areas and with no taxes and no government, I don't see who is going to volunteer for the dangerous, dirty hard work that pays nothing.

I am also not necessarily convinced that simply allowing everybody to keep as much money as they can earn is even the best possible solution even for the very people who imagine they would benefit most from such a policy. It *seems* obvious that if I have, for example $20,000 more in my bank account than I would otherwise have, then I am better off as a result. But that $20,000 is really nothing in relation to the national economy. It will not enable me to, for example, fix the problems created by toxic nuclear waste dump that just happened to burst open upriver from my home town after a recent storm. Imagine also that EVERYBODY has that extra $20,000. We'd all think it stupidly obvious that we are all better off. But many people are likely to spend it in ways that may make both my and their lives much worse. Again, to a degree that the extra 20k in our accounts cannot compensate for. For example, if everybody living in my town suddenly received enough of a tax break, then we might all celebrate by buying a car rather than continuing to cycle or bus to work. But in fact, everybody might actually be worse off because of the extra traffic, smog and loss of exercise. With all the new traffic, it might actually take longer to get to work--even for those who continue to take buses--but everybody would just sit in their cars anyway damning the traffic like it was uniquely everybody else's fault; no amount of extra money or tax breaks will get them there faster. So, time again to dust off that old cycle (also an example of an alternative to burning fossil fuels, but hardly a comprehensive solution to the problem.)

I think capitalism (i.e., the free market) works because it is fundamentally based on the assumption that all people are greedy, lazy, selfish and stupid. Exceptions to this are rare enough that the system winds up working acceptably well, or at least out competing alternatives attempted until now. People go to work because they realize that they are forced to if they want to eat and show off or whatever and so long as it seems like they are adequately compensated for their efforts, they consider the situation tolerable and think they are "free". Everybody might secretly prefer to be poets rather than janitors, but the free market ensures that bad poetry doesn't pay very well, thereby ensuring that we don't end up with a 100% population of layabout poets and we can all avoid starving to death. Fine. On average, everything looks good. But as soon as someone is permitted to accept inherited privilege or wealth, we are looking at an exception to the free market. This person has profited without regard to contribution or ability and is therefore just as much a violation of the free market as is a welfare recipient (otherwise, the much more popular target of free-market cheer leaders). I would argue that this person is in fact a more dangerous aberration to the system than the welfare recipient because it frees him or her (let's call her "Paris") to apply influences to society that are out of proportion to her ability, compassion or understanding of the consequences. It also lets her not care if everything goes to shit because she will always have enough money to buy a house far away from whatever problems she produces (through nuclear waste mismanagement, for example) and even her own private army to fight off the malcontents when they come knocking. Once the Libertarians have knocked down all government and regulations, how are we to deal with Paris? Do we all deserve to suffer because of our poor choice of birth parents?

Ron Paul is also anti-choice on the abortion issue. Hardly a Libertarian opinion. I suppose that's why he left the Libertarians to join the Republicans.

I'm all in favor of closing all the military bases and bankrupting most the defense industry, though.

Another view of the same event is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar__mFKIOOs

It's definitely Gov't Mule from Bonnaroo.