This is a sonar processing glitch. Other examples:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=51.69299,-17.276001&spn=2.584487,7.141113&z=8
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=31.16581,-20.181885&spn=5.873809,6.899414&z=8

thanks for using a method that destroyed the actual colony...

...I'm sure the could've implemented sonar to create a model instead.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shuac:
I've always said there should be two brake light configs:
1) always on for speeds above 30 mph
2) fast blinking for speeds below 30 mph

I've had similar thoughts, only I figured it would be more valuable if they flashed when rapidly decelerating instead of based on their speed. Cars are all equipped with accelerometers for the airbag system anyway. It can sometimes be difficult to tell if the car up ahead is lightly breaking or if they're coming to a screeching halt, especially at night.
Perhaps one day all cars will be equipped with those 'sonar' type systems that allow them to match the speed of the car in front of them when using cruise control. I see no reason why the same system couldn't warn you of pending impact when the cruise control is off.


Of course this is why seasoned drivers (I picked this up in Europe but have seen it in North America), kick in their four-way hazard lights when braking hard in heavy traffic.

Especially useful if you have yellow tail turn signal lights rather than the cheap "all-red" rear which I simply despise.


There was this one crash - just this spring - when I was driving family from Europe down to Niagara Falls and there was a sudden highway slowdown.

I was keeping a safe distance, but had to break pretty hard. I kicked on the 4-ways while I was at it. Car behind me noticed and slowed down okay. Whoever else was behind HIM though, was retarded/asleep... BOOM< CRUNCH> SMACK.

Yeah.

Called the OPP to report a multi-car collision... oh, just behind me, I'm fine.

>> ^shuac:
I've always said there should be two brake light configs:
1) always on for speeds above 30 mph
2) fast blinking for speeds below 30 mph


I've had similar thoughts, only I figured it would be more valuable if they flashed when rapidly decelerating instead of based on their speed. Cars are all equipped with accelerometers for the airbag system anyway. It can sometimes be difficult to tell if the car up ahead is lightly breaking or if they're coming to a screeching halt, especially at night.

Perhaps one day all cars will be equipped with those 'sonar' type systems that allow them to match the speed of the car in front of them when using cruise control. I see no reason why the same system couldn't warn you of pending impact when the cruise control is off.

I always loved how they incorporated a sonar ping into this song.

This was the first Outkast album I bought, off the strength of hearing "Da Art of Story Telling Part 1"

this video shows more of the software and the new virtual gadgets: http://www.videosift.com/video/Sonar-8-new-tech-and-instruments-demonstration

I saw it at noon on opening day and loved it. I think it's a bit overhyped, and it's still not the Batman movie I'd make, but it's definitely the best Batman movie we'll ever get. The filming is brilliant. I love how so many shots have these near endless receeding planes of technology overhanging the characters, like in the underground garage that houses the batgear while Wayne Manor is still being rebuilt.

I didn't care for the whole cellphone sonar bit, and also the skyhook stunt doesn't belong in a Batman story, unless a Bat-drone is picking him up or perhaps Alfred is flying the plane, which he is not.

Unfortunately, with 20 minutes left in the run time the house lights came on full brightness for about 5 minutes. Then with about 5 minutes left they came on again, but this time the sound also turned off. This lasted a minute or two, enough to totally ruin the end of the movie for me and the rest of the audience.

I got some free passes out of it. Nice, but having just bought a Blu-ray drive, I plan to see way less movies in cinemas from now on. The frustration is just not worth it.

I think they both stand on their own merits. Nicholson's take goes perfectly with the baroque gothic style Burton was going for in 1989, and Ledger works great for Nolan's uber realism.

Nicholson's take is getting a bad rap. One criticism people level at Jack's performance is that his joker is "too much like Jack Nicholson", but that's why he was cast! Nobody in Hollywood's ever had a more famously threatening grin than Jack Nicholson.

As for the writing of the character, I prefer the Nolan version of the bat mythos, but he's still not making the Batman movies I'd make if a genie granted me the director's chair. I'd make it a lot more low key and make Batman far more self-reliant. Four people knew his identity by the end of Begins. Dumb. Parts of The Dark Knight belong in a Bond movie... the cellphone sonar and the airplane skyhook stunt come to mind.

I also really wish they'd just left Two-Face out of it. They totally wasted Batman's second-best enemy. Should have had the Joker scar him in this one and then maybe cap the movie with a hint that he is going to be the villain in the next one. You could still have the entire arc without making the last half-hour of the movie seem unfocused and sort of too much of a good thing.

About that baroque gothic style, I could never understand why to this day so many people in the media cite The Dark Knight Returns as the inspiration for the 1989 Batman film. Perhaps the sales numbers inspired it, but in tone and style they are as far apart as any other two interpretations of the mythos.

I'm a bit of a movie snob myself, but the major point at which I disagree with other movie snobs (and I use the term "snob" loosely) is on the suspension of disbelief.

Suspension of disbelief is a relative mechanic which cannot be applied liberally. In college I studied mythology, which suspends disbelief in favor of super-human acts and moral decisions rather than justifying, or describing in any believable way, their actions. Superheroes are mythological archetypes which fall into a similar category that embraces super-human behavior and "justice over evil" above all else.

For me The Dark Knight was TOO realistic at times. The sonar/phone bullshit was an attempt at making a superpower, or in Batman's case, a gadget, "realistic"; it didn't break any sort of suspension of disbelief, rather the opposite: It tried too hard to justify the power.

Now, I'm a man that anticipates the future. For me the evolution of superhero movies is more fascinating than the movies themselves. All you suspension of disbelief fanboys just wait til the big push for cross-superhero movies comes. Marvel has the boulder rolling with the set up for the Avengers, so it's only a matter of time before Superman and Batman cross paths. Once that happens, kiss all suspension good bye cuz your mind will be fucked if you embrace it.

Original Avengers? Thor, Iron Man, Wasp, the Hulk and Ant Man. Explain that to your suspension of disbelief.

Original Justice League? Batman, Superman, the Flash, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern. Again, suspension of disbelief really has no place. Especially working off of preconceived ideas whose merit is best judged in the accurate retelling of the stories.

Just returned from a midnight showing and overall: I like it.

Joker is very cool and the "pencil-trick" is not nearly as gory as my mind's eye pictured it. I love the little touches, where he feels very human, like when his remote doesn't work right.

Batman's gravely voice annoys me, but I can accept that he wants to shield his identity somewhat. The gadgets weren't that many, which is a good thing, but that sonar idea was just retarded.

The film dared some things that you didn't expect and copped out on some other stuff. If you enjoyed the first one, this is better. If you hated the first one, you're probably not going to like this one either.

Two-Face was very well done, both the cg and acting. He wouldn't be able to speak properly with half his lip missing, but I'll suspend that disbelief.

>> ^Throbbin:
Impractical for military applications.
All an opposing army would have to do is use sonar to find you - something I imagine is much easier to accomplish than spending billions on invisibility technology.
One could even assume that development of technology that uses sonar that transmits images to a goggle or other screen for viewing would be much easier and cheaper to create and arm an army with.


Problem with sonar is, by the time your outgoing pulse reaches the tank, it's fired a sabot round into your face. We're not talking a couple hundred feet here. You'd be masking a tank from miles out, where only the muzzle flash would be visible. I could see this tech being like a little fence you erect around the tank, and fire over it. Kinda like going hull-down on flat ground.

Impractical for military applications.

All an opposing army would have to do is use sonar to find you - something I imagine is much easier to accomplish than spending billions on invisibility technology.

One could even assume that development of technology that uses sonar that transmits images to a goggle or other screen for viewing would be much easier and cheaper to create and arm an army with.

Hey, thanks for making that play list Eklek. I've finally updated the link (though the vid still only has four votes). It can be found here.

In reply to this comment by Eklek:
Hi yoghurt,
I just found out you already posted a Sonar festival viral with a human headed animal. I had made a playlist with all seven of them here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6CFA1045FAC1228A
Could you embed this in your post,
thanks
gr.Eklek

This is also how we can tell how fast stars are moving towards/away from us.
This is how police speed detectors work
Some sonars and radars use this to determine the velocity of the target.
This is how a radar detector can tell whether the police are moving towards you or away from you.

Wow nice find in wikipidia. I didn't know they have these type of thing there.
Religious and philosophy a thin line there.

I guess one thing that makes the hold thing confusing or misleading is that in the English language there is allot of room for interpretation. If a sound is express as a wave traveling throw a medium then I think is accurate. The perception of that sound is very tricky thing. Some animals perceive those sounds in two different ways. One like a sonar and one like actual "sound".

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Wikipedia outlines 3 interpretations here. The third echoes what I proposed earlier whereas the first sounds a lot like what you describe. While it does potentially have religious ramifications, depending on what 'answer' you subscribe to, it's still fundamentally a philosophical question, not a religious one.

In reply to this comment by nickreal03:
A sound is a wave traveling throw the air period. Perception is a hold different subject which I don't see how it could possible fit. I belief this question was originally targeted to asked whether the universe exits because of humans rather than regarless of humans. I think is just an old stupid probably religious question that still been echo throw generations for some really stupid reason.