Ah, so it becomes clear.

It's the air pressure created when puling an upward-pointing Tesla valve up that draws the water up and causes only little to travel back down when the pump is pushed down. It's not a full-on vacuum, but it would cause air and water in the tube to be drawn upward.

I wonder if that would work as well as they imply. I imagine it would take more effort to draw water than with the full vacuum of a traditional pump.

Why didn't they put that into one of their fancy CGI animations? This is the worst video ever. Now I want to down-vote it.

Thanks for helping lift the fog, @Payback.

And now he is covered in pee fog.

Your video, Audi Laser Tail Lights Can be seen through fog and smoke, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Winter (and its full moon) also means that you cant watch stars or planets nearly as well, since the light of the moon is interfering a lot. Also the cold weather is bad for telescope mirrors because they will fog up or even freeze over.

Not to mention that I like winter because its so dark and making siting at home very cozy. Having a full moon all night long destroys that feeling.

so why the score from 2001: A Space Odyssey for this trailer? and where's the monster Godzilla fights? if it's just another, giant monster who you only catch snippets of while people run around an interact with the by-product damage of a giant creature walking around a city.... until the end of the movie.... why not just watch the other American Godzilla, or Cloverfield...

this seems to me like just a rehash of the American Godzilla from 10yrs back, with updated graphics..."that fog hiding Godzilla is SO realistic!"... but this time, lets make Godzilla look more like the rubber suit Godzilla...

two monsters or more fighting? naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah... why'd they ever actually pay homage to the series like that?

Milan's airport was built on a marsh and fog like this happens a lot....

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Skillful, geek, engineering, wings' to 'instrument, landing, ILS, clouds, fog, blind, runway' - edited by calvados

The alternative, as far as I am familiar with the counterargument to this viewpoint, would have been to loosen the requirement of "unconditional surrender" of Japan, and possibly to demonstrate the bomb by dropping it on an unpopulated area. Inviting Japanese scientists to a staging ground for a controlled demonstration was also on the books.

Now, assuming the US top brass were convinced Japan was not going to surrender, the argument presented here is quite valid. Bombing a live target certainly had the most shock value, and the bombs were likely in quite limited supply. (I confess, I don't know how many there were at the time.) A continued conventional war would have been horrendous.

But... Were the Japanese really unwilling to surrender, and if so, why? According to what I've read... Well, let me just quote the story, I've seen this in a number of texts:

"At the conclusion of the conference, Roosevelt and Churchill held a press conference. Roosevelt said that he and Churchill…

…were determined to accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany, Japan, and Italy…

Churchill said later that he was surprised by this statement. Churchill adds that he was told by Harry Hopkins that the President said to him:

…then suddenly the Press Conference was on, and Winston and I had had no time to prepare for it; and the thought popped into my mind that they had called Grant “Old Unconditional Surrender,” and the next thing I knew I had said it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/jonathan-goodwin/roosevelt-demands-unconditionalsurrender/

It was Jonathan Glover who I first read giving this account of events, but I don't remember what his source was. The argument he and others make, though, is that the Japanese did signal their willingness to surrender, but were not willing to do so unconditionally. This is because they feared the emperor might have been deposed and put to trial, which was simply unthinkable to them. If this is true, then dropping the bombs may have been unnecessary and even before the bombs, the war effort in the Pacific could have been ended through diplomatic means.

All this does leave one with some disconcerting questions. Would Allied leaders really have refused to reconsider their demands of Japan simply due to prestige and the need to show resolve? Was there no diplomatic backchannel? Certainly the fog of war must have played a part in the decisions made. I haven't been able to find a source beyond hearsay for what, exactly, the Japanese diplomatic position on surrender was. Considering this debate still goes on, no such source is likely to surface.

What stands out here, to me, as the saddest thing is: it seems countless lives were lost for lack of solid information and communication between enemies. Had Japan and the Allies been able to negotiate further, had the allies dared show their nuclear hand, had they made it possible for the emperor (while not a nice guy by any means) to be protected, how many lives could have been saved? Unfortunately, no-one has the benefit of hindsight when it's most needed.

I can't help but think of the Cuban missile crisis - what would have happened, had a similar failure to communicate occurred at that time? It was very close...

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

Modern Era being say, last thirty-forty years but not the last fifty to seventy though. He's as fantastic a composer for the formulaic music he creates-I agree he ranks among the greats of cinematic composition but his claim to fame being so ingrained in pop culture with Star Wars for me means he kinna squeaked-into the realm of 20th century American composers like Copeland. Bernstein, or Gershwin. I dunno, he's more like a Howard Shore or Hans Zimmer for me, not quite reaching the all-star team of 20th century long-haired first-stringers.

Maybe I'm simply prejudiced against the all-consuming cheese-fog of Star Wars, Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, etc. Maybe I'll try the experiment of listening to one of his compositions without the backdrop of a film. No wait, see I did that-In 77' I bought the double LP of the Star Wars soundtrack (yahhh, I was frikkin' 12) and got bored with it-Never get bored listening to Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite or Ravel's Bolero, though!

Home base- where the fog cleared and clarity set in. I would move back in a heartbeat.

Wisconsin had a similar fog related pileup. Fewer cars involved, and more fatalities. 10 dead, 2 of which were known personally to me. Here's the most information I've ever seen gathered on a single accident: http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/resources/NHVC_presentations/John_Jones.pdf

Thanks! I think its funny that the parts that look like bad nasa footage of space was the pavement close to an empty park parking lot I was out there being a total little kid with that fog, sort of like when the lightning bugs first come out.

Sweet thanks UP! This is my bedroom project. I mostly just do jams, The video is grainy because it was super dark out and there was a fog storm, which is what it is just mirrored fog storm from my shitty bloggie thingy ma-jig.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.