>> ^MilkmanDan:

A "parrot mimicking porno" sounds suspiciously like porno run through a digital pitch-shifter, including digital artifacts... Amazing?


Maybe, but I still found it funny to watch though

A "parrot mimicking porno" sounds suspiciously like porno run through a digital pitch-shifter, including digital artifacts... Amazing?

oh i know it was in fact real, and not edited. the only edit made were the joining of the many videos of each angle we took of the dog working the ropes, the music, and the titles. the video is pixelated because it has been compressed. i know this because i am the dude in the video holding the ropes for little geronimo come to dollywood this summer to see the action in person, and see for yourself.


In reply to this comment by flydog102:
In reply to this comment by iaui:
The dog is clearly talented and may perhaps be able to skip a couple passes of the rope (though that's questionable) but the extended video of the dog jumping up and down is clearly edited*. The exact same sequence of the dog jumping up and down is used multiple times in each new camera angle. In one of them, at about 0:50, you can see some fade artifacting from the editing process. I'd love to see the original footage if it exists, but I think it probably doesn't...

*I can tell because of some of the pixels. (;



actually dog is jumping rope perfectly. no editing of the dog jumping rope at all. i should know. its my video and my dog. took me 5 straight weeks to complete the trick. no camera tricks here.

In reply to this comment by iaui:
The dog is clearly talented and may perhaps be able to skip a couple passes of the rope (though that's questionable) but the extended video of the dog jumping up and down is clearly edited*. The exact same sequence of the dog jumping up and down is used multiple times in each new camera angle. In one of them, at about 0:50, you can see some fade artifacting from the editing process. I'd love to see the original footage if it exists, but I think it probably doesn't...

*I can tell because of some of the pixels. (;



actually dog is jumping rope perfectly. no editing of the dog jumping rope at all. i should know. its my video and my dog. took me 5 straight weeks to complete the trick. no camera tricks here.

The dog is clearly talented and may perhaps be able to skip a couple passes of the rope (though that's questionable) but the extended video of the dog jumping up and down is clearly edited*. The exact same sequence of the dog jumping up and down is used multiple times in each new camera angle. In one of them, at about 0:50, you can see some fade artifacting from the editing process. I'd love to see the original footage if it exists, but I think it probably doesn't...

*I can tell because of some of the pixels. (;

Christians have boring artifacts. If he picked a more controversial religion he could have giant pentagram carpets installed across the entire center of the oval office.

Why the double standard with climate change?

Surely you don't consider those the same thing?

Toxicity is pretty simple. You run a test feeding creatures cyanide, and they always die if you give them enough.

By comparison, climate change involves interdependent processes that span virtually every branch of known science. I work in an academic environment and have seen what frequently comes out of inter-disciplinary studies. It comes out with stuff like the first link I gave above. Some climate guys who aren't very good with math go ahead and use a misapply a statistical method. That misuse is KNOWN and EXPECTED to give a falsely zero-biased result in the situation the climatologists misapplied. The climatologists then unknowingly went ahead and declared the zero-biased results they received as unique and important evidence that past climate change had little variance from zero. The reality, as evidenced in the article I linked, shows that the truth of the matter is that much better statistical methods exist for the application, and when they were applied by the climatologists, low and behold the historic variation leapt up, so much so as to make the last 100 years no longer look anything like the anomaly they did before.

With climate change there are a million variations and possibilities. The most important question to answer is just how imminent and severe are the effects we are facing. The most straight forward test is the one that Mann et al wowed the IPCC and the world with, showing that the temperature change over the last 100 years was unlike anything in the last 2 thousand. It turns out though that in truth, Mann's original results were an artifact not of human emissions, but of human error in math. Mann's new results show that the earth has been as warm as today multiple times over the last 2k years, and that in that time temperature has previously dropped just as fast as it rose in the last hundred.


As to what to do with unknowns, it still depends on the assumptions you come in with. What percentage do you want to lower emissions by? How much of a difference will that make to future temperature? What is the cost of lowering emissions by that much? What are the costs of dealing the increased temperature instead?

It's not a simply problem with some easy logical answer that is independent of those questions. What's worse, is now those questions not only span scientific fields, but they bleed over into economics and political science as well.

Your assessment before marks the cost of lowering CO2 emissions as moderate and the costs of not lowering them as potential huge. If the cost of lowering CO2 emissions is to be kept moderate, it means not lowering them by very much or not lowering them very quickly. Either way, it means if the effects of CO2 are drastic, we are STILL going to have to adapt significantly in addition to the money spent on reducing emissions. It sounds to me like just a variation on my own suggestion to be honest. A modest investment in battery and nuclear infrastructure, and adapt accordingly with the impacts that doesn't cover or accommodate. The most dire and immediate adaptations are ones that need to be made anyways, so I again don't see the risk as severe as others claim. It's not as though New Orleans was all peachy and good until things got warmer. A city on the coast below sea level, or islands a few feet above sea level could use a lot of dollars spent on adaptation even if we lowered emissions to the point of lowering sea levels by a foot.

@mxxcon is right in that there's no absolute reason this isn't possible. There's lots of exploits that start with malicious data, and exploit overflows or error conditions to trick the computer into executing data. This is obviously easier if you start with a digital file, but it wouldn't be impossible to create an analog object that when measured would create that equivalent file.

I mean obviously it would take a chain of crazy that's very, very long (and has nothing to do with fractals), but it's not absolutely impossible.

The target could perhaps be a set of values that are automatically calculated and that wouldn't be affected by things outside of the bad guy's control (random things like the orientation of bones for scanning). Perhaps (and bear with me on the crazy) there would be a set of measurements that are stored as a string, and the artifact could be crafted to have much larger values for those measurements (or more of that feature) than the buffer was prepared to receive. That's a very normal start for an exploit.

Having the surrounding data correspond to a valid popped address, and in turn having that point to runnable code would require either a lot of data, with very predictable quantization, stored consistently and together, or (more simply) omniscience.

Theoretical discussion aside, it was a vaguely clever idea very poorly executed. This is really, really bad for a police procedural. Honestly, though, it's still much better than what you get in sci-fi (eg. Warp 10 made us slugs, transporter fixed it, we're fine now so let's forget about Warp 10).

Nice video. I'd love to see a higher quality (and maybe higher resolution) version. My eyes ache from the YouTube compression artifacts in this one. YouTube (as most video compression) does not handle nebulosity very well.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Bollocks, ip doesn't stifle innovation, it encourages it. Take pharmaceuticals for instance, without patent protection companies simply couldn't afford the millions required to research new drugs (yes, drug companies are evil, etc, but theyre still kinda important).
As for the difference between physical property and intellectual property, are you really saying that a sculptor deserves compensation for their work, but a writer/musician/programmer doesn't?
That kind of attitude is why idiotic laws like this get written in the first place.


If I want to own your statue I need the physical artifact itself (until 3d printing technology matures...), if I want to listen to your CD I never need to touch the thing. These are real distinctions. This is not a question of what you deserve; it's reality. You cannot cry about it and try to oppose the basic operation of the universe because you want to make your living by singing once into a box. Do gigs, sell tshirts, update your business model and stop crying.

---

Ug hits a couple of rocks together and makes a spark, the spark starts a fire. He shows his innovation off to the rest of his tribe, everyone's very impressed. Soon they learn to copy his technique, now they can eat a wider variety of food, stay warm in winter, keep the god damn flies away - they flourish. Other tribes take notice, so on, pretty soon everyone is using fire.

Ug hits a couple of rocks together and makes a spark, the spark starts a fire. He knows fire is now his intellectual property. He makes a comfortable living starting fires for people, but only if they agree to turn away while he does it. He gets the biggest share of the food, which he never has to bother to hunt for, never mind how hungry the others are. Anyone who accidentally observes his method keeps it to themselves because they know Ug owns the patent to fire, and they're not allowed to know how to make it without his permission. Ug dies. No one is using fire any more.

Yes, excellent stuff.

Robert T Frederick, the first CO of the Devil's Brigade, is my personal hero. Winston Churchill called him "the greatest fighting general of all time" and said "if we had had a dozen more like him we would have smashed Hitler in 1942". His biography, The Last Fighting General is definitely worth a read.

Also quite coincidentally, I found out New Year's Eve that the father of a family friend was in the Devil's Brigade. He hadn't told anyone until shortly before he died... They truly were amazing men.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

Complete coincidence, but I just watched "The Devil's Brigade" 3 nights ago. Really great vintage WWII movie, realistic or not.

If you haven't seen it yet I recommend checking it out at your local Bittorrent multiplex.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062886/

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

Interesting discussion from someone who knows what he's talking about.

I once got to hold one of the V-42 Fighting Knives issued to the 1st Special Service Force. Amazing being able to hold that kind of historical artifact.

Interestingly, some of the soldiers in the 1st SSF ground down the tips so they didn't get stuck in the ribs when they stabbed someone - the needle tip was making it difficult to kill someone and even more difficult to withdraw the knife.

>"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement.

No, I mean Gods judgement. Mans judgement is relative, Gods judgement is absolute.

It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control.

You have discarded them because you're suppressing the truth. God even proved to you that you have a soul and you pretend it was a mental artifact so you don't have to deal with reality.

However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity.

If you're going to criticize the bible then take the time to understand it. Go learn the difference between the levitical and melchizedek priesthood and then get back to me.

This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse.

What is good and evil do not change, and if you believe they could change, it means that anything that you consider evil could potentially become good. However, we all know some things are absolutely wrong and always will be, because everyone has a God given conscience which tells them that.

Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

There is nothing new under the sun. Man is as unspiritual and worldly as he ever has been.


>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement. It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control. However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity. This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse. Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

There is one off Jupiter too, as some kind sifter pointed out when I sifted this video.

i.e.

it's an artifact of trying to mask the bright planets off the scene