http://videosift.com/video/Static-Daydream-Inside

Hmmm. Well, the old adage is that only a fool in a ship attacks a land fort. A static target, with big, obvious radars and refueling tanks?
Sounds like a missile target to me.
Geez, if a hot war ever breaks out there, it would a screw up of the most massive proportion by both sides.

So awesome.

Their next challenge will be to get it to deal with obstacles that are not static. When the humans rise against the machines the meatbags won't be standing still like those blocks of foam.

Aye fair points, I guess what I'm sayin' though is that you don't necessarily need to aim for maximum muscle size in your workouts, you can perform exercises that stress your bones/tendons without really packing on much mass - i.e. static holds. Also, in terms of bones breaking, more muscle (compared to bone mass) will make it easier to break your arm, but usually it's always because of poor technique as well, i.e. putting yourself in the 'break arm' position. Pretty much exactly what happened to Nathan Jones in the WSM.

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Statically speaking Gays are not even on the radar. Gays make up less then 4% of population. Just because gays have a larger demographic in media and hence have a greater opportunity promote their cause still does not change that fact that they are insignificant in the eyes of society.

And WE have decided that gay marriage is wrong and will not be tolerated.

NAMBLA probably has a bigger demographic. Either way should they be recognized?

If tracks were perfect, it should make no noticeable difference...until you fall over, then being stationary is obviously preferable.
BUT...tracks aren't perfect, so the train being bounced side to side WOULD make it easier to be pushed over.
Also, curves have a slight angle to them, so trains going a certain speed will remain flat in the curve...so going too fast or too slow puts you off balance. It's hard to tell if that piece of track is curved.
Wheels are designed so they are ALWAYS using static friction , even when moving. The portion of the wheel in contact with the ground is stationary. (except when skidding)

Your video, Cat + Balloons + Static Electricity = Hilarity, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Not fully understood by scientists?!? It's static electricity caused by all the particles rubbing together, simple, known for decades. It's the same way regular lightning is created, just with larger, heavier particles closer together in a volcano. What are they talking about?

http://static.animalpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/you-sir.jpg

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

Yes, semi impressive, but static scenes are in the end static. These are useful for architectural groups and the like to show off stuff. Virtual builds for a client to walk through.

For gaming, one needs to see the scene in a game like state with action going on, and high polygon models moving in and around the high polygon scenery. There is where we get our real test.

Still pretty, and we are getting closer and closer to near realistic stuff rendering out in real time.

From my experience, and physics class, that should only be true if your brakes suck. Physics don't lie, and I was taught that static friction is ALWAYS greater than kinetic friction...meaning rolling tires grip better than sliding tires every time. If your brakes are able to grip with more 'stopping' force than the sliding tire produces and still allow 'slip', they should be able to stop you faster than sliding.

Perhaps on ice that's true, or other slippery surfaces where the sensors get confused, or with really bad or broken ABS, but good ABS seriously reduces the distance to stop AND retains control by rapidly (thousands per second) pulsing the braking force up to maximum possible force without stopping the rotation. That should be more stopping force than locked tires can produce if the brakes are in good condition.

I've been in the car when an idiot friend decided to prove it to me, and slammed on his new BMW's brakes at about 70mph. The seatbelt hit so hard I had the wind knocked out of me, and we stopped ridiculously fast (WAY faster than when I've locked up non-abs cars on the freeway...repeatedly). Afterwards, he needed new brakes all around, because they gripped so hard and hot it warped the new rotors, but never locked up the tires...retaining static friction between the road and tire. Dumb...but informative.

Nice, but kind of really simple and the fibonacci thing is b.s.

Any repeating pattern would display these kind of effects, creeping forward and backwards when spun.

There are some interesting examples when used with water, making the water appear static, will post some links when I get a moment

The world isn't static.
For example, the J-20, between its stealth capabilities and its ability to jam radar, significantly lowers the range of our BVR radar guided missiles, because our radar guided missiles can't track them beyond a given range.
So you have to get closer - ideally without moving into range of the opponent's missiles.

A Super Hornet (which BTW is an ~entirely new plane compared to the original hornet. It's not an 'upgrade' to an existing airframe.) can't move in closer without exposing itself to fire.

Furthermore, the F35's ability to get closer than conventional fighters makes it 'take point' for information gathering and transmitting data over the network.

Yes, the F35 is has a wasteful inflated budget in large part architected to throw money at political friends - but the vehicle does exist to plug a real hole.

-scheherazade

My favorites are still his old Shaw Bro's pictures.
The static shot thing is the best. I HATE it when a 'fight' scene is all 1/3 second shots from behind patched together. It's ridiculous, and not followable, and yes, looks like a bunch of people flailing around, not a fight where people are getting hurt.