search results matching tag: Static

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (761)     Sift Talk (116)     Blogs (134)     Comments (858)   

Rick and Morty Multiverse

How to drive a HMMWV in Iraq.

SFOGuy says...

Someone who knows that letting vehicles, cattle, poultry, or objects stop you in a possibly hostile place is putting you into a static kill zone for an ambush or IED.

Yet this probably enrages the regular population too.

So it's lose/lose

Sagemind said:

WTF kinda Asshat driver is that?

Glass bottom pool with a view!

AeroMechanical says...

I dunno, it's pretty static. If it's up there every day with probably about seventy tons of water in it and it isn't hasn't cracked or broken yet, it's probably cool to support a couple thousand pounds of people bouncing around.

Compare Fleet Insurance

Compare Courier Insurance

Ricky Gervais And Colbert Go Head-To-Head On Religion

scheherazade says...

Actually, matter does appear and disappear from and to nothing. There are energy fields that permeate space, and when their potential gets too high, they collapse and eject a particle. Similarly, particles can be destroyed or decay and upon that event they cause a spike in the background energy fields.

One of the essential functions of a collier is to compress a bunch of crap into a tiny spot, so that when enough decays in that specific spot it will cause such a local spike in energy that new particles must subsequently be ejected (particles that are produced at some calculated energy level - different energy levels producing different ejections).

*This is at the subatomic level. Large collections of matter don't just convert to energy.

I know plenty of people roll eyes at that, but the math upon which those machines are built are using the same math that makes things like modern lithography machines work (they manipulate tiny patterns of molecules). You basically prove the math every time you use a cell phone (thing with modern micro chips).

...

But that's beside the point. If there ever was 'nothing', the question isn't "whether or not god exists to have made things" - it's "why do things exist". God could be an answer. As could infinite other possibilities.

...

Personally, eternity is the answer I assume is most likely to be correct. Because you don't have to prove anything. The universe need not be static - but if something was always there (even just energy fields), then there is an eternity in one form or anther.

Background energy and quantum tunneling are a neat concept (referring to metastability). Because you can have a big-bang like event if the background energy level tunnels to a lower state, expanding a new space starting at that point, re-writing the laws of physics in its area of existence. Meaning that our universe as we know it can simply be one of many bubbles of expanding tunneling events - created at the time of the event, and due to be overwritten by another at some point. Essentially a non-permanent local what-we-percieve-as-a-universe, among many. (I'm avoiding the concept that time and space are relative to each bubble, and there is no concept of an overarching time and place outside of any one event).

(All this comes from taking formulas that model measurements of reality, globing them into larger models, and then exploring the limits of those models at extreme values/limits. ... with a much lagging experimental base slowly proving and disproving elements of the model (and forcing model refinement upon a disproval, so that the model encompasses the new test data))

-scheherazade

shinyblurry said:

Why is there something rather than nothing is the essential question, which Ricky Jervais dodged.

There are only two choices: either there is something eternal or everything spontaneously was created from nothing, which is impossible.

If there is something eternal, that opens a whole host of new questions.

Liberal Redneck - Muslim Ban

enoch says...

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

New Zealand Alcohol PSA

Drawing Sword From The Back - Is It Possible?

eric3579 (Member Profile)

Cute Kitten Plays Apps on Apple iPod.

newtboy says...

OK, I can kind of get on board with this, but who the hell designed this one? How stupid can you get to make it stop if the cat touches the screen? It should require a specific pattern to stop, and otherwise just react to touches, like make the moth turn around and flutter, or make the mouse squeak if the cat touches it. Going back to the static start screen is terrible and defeats the purpose, no?

Building Facade That Changes Every Hour

oblio70 says...

Architecture is LONG past the time to advance into the Machine Age. We've got toilets that wipe our asses for us, and our buildings are still big static objects. Buildings should be moving, shifting, walking away...

Clinton Uses LRAD To Hide Fundraiser Speech From Reporters

entr0py says...

It seems that every news outlet characterizes it as white noise pumped through speakers. The whole LRAD angle apparently come from youtube, with this page being the top result for "LRAD Clinton".

Once you remove the element of it somehow being dangerous, I don't think it's any more unethical than holding a speech behind closed doors. But the use of technology does make it a bit creepy.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-team-blasts-reporters-with-noise-machine-during-hillary-fundraising-speech/article/2587996

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530065/Clinton-campaign-blasts-reporters-white-noise-machine-t-hear-comments-outdoor-campaign-fundraiser.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748

DOOM - Fight Like Hell Cinematic Trailer

artician says...

And another thing...!

I went back and watched the 18 minutes of singleplayer footage that's on Youtube. Everything about it looks heartbreakingly terrible.

Enemies still spawn out of mid-air(?)
The animations throughout are lifeless and robotic, especially the first-person ones.
Gore is just... Particles and a lame excuse for early asset despawns. There's NO blood splatter anywhere unless it's part of the environments (I know why; I don't care). Some of the deaths are cool, but are still static directionally-irrelevant animations.
The game slows time when you switch weapons... >.>
The enemies have a generic getting-shot reaction.
There's little 'punch' behind the weapons
And then their little faux-FPS camera work makes you question the whole thing anyway. With that particular video in general it's pretty gross anyway, with the faked audience audio/cheering in the background.

At least their VFX and Environment teams seem on point.

Cheey Little Love Song



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon