You even voted before I did! Woah!>> ^HaricotVert:

Dammit. SO CLOSE.

Imagine someone in 1911 looking at this movie and trying to figure out what's going on.

Now imagine what movies digital experience implants will be like in 2111.

>> ^Croccydile:

This brings back some old memories... common for these kinds of intros on certain C64, Amiga, PC releases back in the day. Razor1911 is one of the originals! You can find alot of these on YouTube as well since finding them individually in original form now is exceptionally difficult. Was this specific to Starcraft 2 or simply an updated .nfo viewer?
On a semi-related note, its good to see that the 64k intros are (amazingly) still being made today as well. Rather difficult to believe its possible to do that anymore, especially in 3D without all the bloat from libraries.
One of the best, and it still works on modern OS/PCs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkEsP9H2HGM
Unfortunately some of the productions are false positives in modern virus scanners, thinking because of the .exe packer its a trojan (Not the case here)


I believe this was written specifically for SC2 but I am not sure they might use old stuff and just update the text in it. Dunno.

As for C64 and Amiga intros/demos I agree.
Another great 4k PC demo is: http://videosift.com/video/Elevated-Procedural-realtime-terrain-demo (elevated - RGBA & TBC) Winner of 2009 Breakpoint.

Thanks for the link. It really is awe inspiring.

Wow, thanks! I've never had one of those before.

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
This is beautiful. Another amazing musician/individual I only hear of on/after the day they died.. better late than never, however.

*quality

Since you're so curious, Schmawy, it's called "free plate tuning", and it was developed by the recently departed Carleen Hutchins...

Carleen Maley Hutchins (May 24, 1911 – August 7, 2009) was an American former high school science teacher, violinmaker and researcher, best-known for her creation, in the 1950s/60s, of a family of eight proportionally-sized violins now known as the violin octet (e.g., the vertical viola) and for a considerable body of research into the acoustics of violins. She was born in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Hutchins’s greatest innovation, still used by many violinmakers, was a technique known as free-plate tuning. When not attached to a violin, the top and back are called free plates. Her technique gives makers a precise way to refine these plates before a violin is assembled.

From 2002 to 2003, Hutchins’s octet was the subject of an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Titled “The New Violin Family: Augmenting the String Section.” Hutchins was the founder of the New Violin Family Association[1], creator-in-chief of the Violin Octet, author of more than 100 technical publications, editor of two volumes of collected papers in violin acoustics, four grants from the Martha Baird Rockefeller Fund for Music, recipient of two Guggenheim Fellowships, an Honorary Fellowship from the Acoustical Society of America, and four honorary doctorates. In 1963, Hutchins co-founded the Catgut Acoustical Society, which develops scientific insights into the construction of new and conventional instruments of the violin family.

The Hutchins Consort, named after Hutchins, is a California ensemble featuring all eight instruments.[2]

In 1974, Hutchins and Daniel W. Haines, using materials supplied by the Hercules Materials Company, Inc. (Allegheny Ballistics Laboratory) of Cumberland, Maryland, developed a graphite-epoxy composite top that was determined to be a successful alternative to the traditional use of spruce for the violin belly.[3]

Pimpage!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Carleen-Hutchins-1911-2009

It is a highly modified Model 1911, the manufacturer of which I am unable to ascertain.

^unclejimbo,

directly comparing murder rates country-to-country is not a valid comparison because of a convolution of variables and you should know that. the figures i quoted were not simple murders, if one included those, the numbers would be even higher. genocide is only possible under a differential of force. that occurs when one group disarms another group. i think you should read up on gun myths further before you jump to the conclusions held by "popular knowledge". if this is a subject you are interested in, (at least interested enough to read about while you are at work) i can point you to a lot of enlightening information.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-
millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million
dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million
"educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians
were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded
up and killed."

It is not enough to say that gun control resulted in these deaths, this requires additional analysis which is found in that book. Gun confiscation rarely results in the direct, immediate death of its owner, rather it establishes a force differential which makes oppression, genocide, and murder possible.

You may not realize it, but one of the few things stopping someone from rounding you up and killing you is the fact that there are 150 million guns in this country. It does not mean that in the absence of guns genocide always occurs, but there has never been an instance of genocide where the victims had a means to defend themselves. If you take away the guns, and somewhere down the road something intense happens which causes a philosophical shift, you are ripe for genocide. Just look at WW2, the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps. How many Japanese lives do you think were spared because the US government did not have the physical power to kill them as a result of an armed populace? How about for arabs after 9-11?

It is extremely dangerous to trust your life with complete strangers, and that is what you do when give up your right to defend yourself.

"all guns will be confiscated and..."

its funny(?) until it comes true. list of countries/states that have confiscated firearms:

1938 Germany
1996 Australia
2001 Canada
1991 New York
1999 California
2005 Louisiana
1997 Great Britain
1935 China
1964 Guatemala
1956 Cambodia
1970 Uganda
1929 USSR
1911 Turkey
Bermuda
Cuba
Greece
Ireland
Jamaica
Soviet Georgia
Kenya
South Africa

Any future bans of weapons in the U.S. will more than likely follow some tragic event perpetrated by a single, damaged individual-
The Brady Bill was fast-tracked, after just such a convenient event.

A more reasonable approach to disarming a nation would be to place prohibitions on the availability of ammunition.

It is a dead certainty, that the media in the U.S., being the uninformed, uneducated, easily manipulated and agenda-oriented bobble-head tools of their owners that they are, will be instrumental in the dis-arming of the Nation, though it will take some catastrophe, natural or engineered to do so....

synchron, in the U.S., an individual may purchase from another individual, any of the guns on the banned list-they can not be marketed through the manufacturer or retailers-
The only 4 guns I will ever need, are all still legal-
Colt 1911 45
Marlin 45/70 Guide Gun
12-gauge (take yer pick, several semi-autos worth while)
and the fun gun
the 1927 A-1 Deluxe Thompson Lightweight (only semi-autos are legal, the fully-auto Thompson is on the banned list)

The only other gun that one would need would be a long-range sniper rifle, and the one that a proficient user could strike the most fear into a would-be assailant that I would have, is this one-SHARPS ARMS MODEL 1874 HARTFORD SPORTING RIFLE-(same calibre as the Marlin...the gun Quigley used)

All for shock and awe and the continued availability of the ammunition used, the shotgun shell,the 45 acp, and the 45/70, may never be banned-and even if they are, they are the only thing worth reloading.

Nice pick, T-man. This should be on the Sift.


Gertie the Dinosaur is a 1914 short animated film by Winsor McCay that inspired many generations of animators to bring their cartoons to life. Although not the first animated film, as is sometimes thought, it was the first cartoon to feature a character with an appealing personality. The appearance of a true character distinguished it from earlier animated "trick films", such as those of Blackton and Cohl, and makes it the predecessor to later popular cartoons such as those by Walt Disney. The film was also the first to be created using keyframe animation.

The film has been selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry, and was named #6 of The 50 Greatest Cartoons of all time in a 1994 survey of animators and cartoon historians by Jerry Beck.

Gertie the Dinosaur was originally created to be used in McCay's vaudeville performances. McCay started performing "chalk talks" on vaudeville in 1906, as a sideline to his regular newspaper cartooning. In 1911, he began presenting animated films on stage, first an animation of Little Nemo in Slumberland, then How a Mosquito Operates. Plans for Gertie were announced in 1912. The episode of McCay's newspaper comic In the Land of Wonderful Dreams published in newspapers on the 21st of September 1913 showed the reader some of the creatures from the upcoming film: a diplodocus, a sea serpent and a four-winged lizard. In January of 1914, the drawings were photographed by Vitagraph Studios. The first presentation of the film was at the Palace Theater in Chicago on February 8, 1914; later performances were at the Hammerstein Theater in New York City.

The performance consisted of McCay interacting with Gertie, a cartoon Diplodocus. McCay would stand on stage in front of a projection screen, dressed in a tuxedo and wielding a whip. He would call Gertie, who appeared from behind some rocks. He then instructed her to perform various tricks, similar to a circus act. He would appear to toss a prop apple to her — McCay palmed the apple while Gertie caught an animated copy of it. Gertie was also seen to swallow a large rock, play with a Mastodon, and drink an entire lake dry. At one point, McCay would scold Gertie for misbehaving, at which she would begin to cry. For the finale, McCay disappeared behind the screen just as a cartoon version of him climbed onto Gertie's head and rode off.

More...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertie_the_Dinosaur

A: Of course you've never met anyone who thought Tae Kwon Do was made for cage fighting. I was being facetious:

You're full of horse puckey, putting it lightly. If you were being facetious, you wouldn't be getting your panties in a knot.

The reason that I said it was that scholars and practitioners generally agree that grappling with limited striking is the best form of one-on-one, unarmed combat, which people love to bring up when talking about Tae Kwon Do. And, which I tend to agree with.

What scholars and practitioners generally agree with that? Bullcrap. I have never heard anybody but non-fighters say that, nor is there a general consensus that there is any single perfect mixture of striking and grappling in MMA. Hell, most of the wins in the UFC title bouts recently have been won through striking: Gonzaga's, Serra's, GSP's, Rampage, etc.

In fact, the general consensus among MMA fighters is that there is no single best combination of striking and grappling. The mixture of grappling and striking is always dependent on the background of the fighter and calibrated to his particular technical and physical abilities. And I've never heard a good fighter with "limited striking" skills, that is unacceptable for any good fighter. A good fighter, even one who's a submission specialist, will have proficient striking skills at the very least, or he's not a good fighter.

But not all fighting takes place one-on-one, or on even, equally familiar ground. (i.e.: a cage fight) The martial arts merely train you in different ways to be prepared for given situations.

I agree that not all fighting takes place one-on-one or on even ground. I do, however, hold that MMA-style training is the single most effective form of training for any kind of unarmed combat, period. I also do not believe that any unarmed martial art will adequately enable you to actually fight multiple opponents with a greater chance of winning than losing.

B. Forms are not the only thing you need to learn to fight. I agree, but they do help impart technique and physical fitness. Otherwise, why do boxers shadowbox? Why do pilots fly training missions? Why do hunters practice shooting targets? Martial artists punch bags, break boards, spar and use all sorts of different ways to train. No combat art relies only on forms, and even modern MMA fighters don't train ONLY in the ring.

Forms are not good at imparting technique, they're a waste of time if you're trying to learn to fight. Sorry. Boxers shadowbox because it is a dynamic exercise, in which there is no set order of technique. That's why they move the same way that they do during a fight, with no pre-conceived list of things to do. Shadowboxing is not comparable to doing forms. Boxers are not just standing in horse stance or front stance and throwing chambered punches, then maybe sidestepping, because a pre-memorized complex set of motions like a traditional form will never be applicable in a fight, individual techniques must be learned in dead drilling, but they must be chained together during dynamic training. Pilots fly training missions, similiarly, because it is a dynamic exercise, that's why they don't just fly the same mission over and over again, they run many different scenarios with things changing every time.

Modern MMA fighters do not train ONLY in the ring. However, good MMA fighters NEVER try to train by:
- breaking boards
- doing forms

They DO train by:
- dead drilling: for re-enforcing a SINGLE new technique being learned, this is largely de-emphasized when a fighter is preparing for a fight
- shadowboxing: dynamic movement, takes up a small percentage of training time, mostly done for warmup
- doing padwork: dynamic movement against a moving target, and sometimes resisting opponent, takes up a medium amount of training time
- doing bagwork: dynamic movement against a moving target, takes up about a medium amount of time
- sparring: dynamic movement against a resisting opponent, takes up a large amount of time

Forms are a waste of time if someone's trying to learn how to fight.

C. Yeah, your not bursting any bubbles here. I know that you think you're smart but I've had the same thought about fighting multiple opponents, as have millions of other people. I never said that I could take on 8 opponents. What I said was that I visualized 8 opponents when practicing a form. It's a way of keeping focused. I don't believe I would have an advantage over anyone, alone or otherwise, before I fight them. To do that would just be asking for failure. I'll tell you this though: If I ever DO have to fight more than one person, I'm not going to say "Hey guys, wait here while I run home and get my 1911 and my baseball bat." I, unlike you, am hopefully going to confront the situation in a realistic manner.

Ok, so remind me again how all this visualization during forms is going to carry over to a fight? Confronting a situation in which you need to fight unarmed against multiple opponents in a realistic manner means acknowledging you're going to get your ass kicked if you try fighting back unarmed, and the only reasonable solutions are: stopping the fight, running, or using a force multiplier (i.e. weapon, friends, etc.). Unlike me. Uh-huh. Please tell me exactly how I'm being unrealistic about this. How exactly would YOU plan on confronting a situation with multiple opponents?

I hate to burst YOUR bubble but fighting in cages has been around for a lot longer than the late 80's. Not to mention, I never said anything about MMA in my first post. You pulled that one right out of your cock holster.

Oh really? Cage fighting's been around since before the late 80s? There's a reason why cagefighting is nearly synonymous with MMA. Hm. Ok, I'll give you the early 80s, maybe even late 70s if you push it. Oh, you meant before that? Please cite your proof. No, seriously. I'm waiting. Oh, and Bloodsport and Mad Max don't count as historical documents. Me and my cock holster will be waiting. I shoot from the hip. Or pelvis, if you want to be specific.

Wow Rembar brilliant fucking insight right there.
Let me make myself a little clearer:

A: Of course you've never met anyone who thought Tae Kwon Do was made for cage fighting. I was being facetious:

FACETIOUS, [fuh-see-shuhs]
-adjective
1. Not meant to be taken literaly.
2. Lacking serious intent.

The reason that I said it was that scholars and practitioners generally agree that grappling with limited striking is the best form of one-on-one, unarmed combat, which people love to bring up when talking about Tae Kwon Do. And, which I tend to agree with. But not all fighting takes place one-on-one, or on even, equally familiar ground. (i.e.: a cage fight) The martial arts merely train you in different ways to be prepared for given situations.

B. Forms are not the only thing you need to learn to fight. I agree, but they do help impart technique and physical fitness. Otherwise, why do boxers shadowbox? Why do pilots fly training missions? Why do hunters practice shooting targets? Martial artists punch bags, break boards, spar and use all sorts of different ways to train. No combat art relies only on forms, and even modern MMA fighters don't train ONLY in the ring.

C. Yeah, your not bursting any bubbles here. I know that you think you're smart but I've had the same thought about fighting multiple opponents, as have millions of other people. I never said that I could take on 8 opponents. What I said was that I visualized 8 opponents when practicing a form. It's a way of keeping focused. I don't believe I would have an advantage over anyone, alone or otherwise, before I fight them. To do that would just be asking for failure. I'll tell you this though: If I ever DO have to fight more than one person, I'm not going to say "Hey guys, wait here while I run home and get my 1911 and my baseball bat." I, unlike you, am hopefully going to confront the situation in a realistic manner.

And one last thing.
I hate to burst YOUR bubble but fighting in cages has been around for a lot longer than the late 80's. Not to mention, I never said anything about MMA in my first post. You pulled that one right out of your cock holster.

Have a great day.

First of all, I've never met anybody who thought TKD was created for cage fighting. Hell, no popularly practiced martial was created for cage fighting. Cages in MMA didn't come into use 'til the late 80s. Second of all, forms don't teach you how to fight. Neither does "visualizing 8 opponents".

And try fighting 3 people with anything less than a baseball bat or 1911 .45 ACP and see how far it gets you. No unarmed art is ever going to let you beat up three people in a fight without enormous amounts of luck and/or a very effective weapon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you think you actually can handle three guys in a fight you've got another thing coming. Actually, another six things coming.

i agree with allowing posts with some significance, such the kennedy or the saddam one.

for example this video portrays a death, but i doubt someone would ever say it's snuff and it should be removed, and i'm glad about that: http://www.videosift.com/video/1911-Darwin-Award-Failed-Birdman