@eric3579, why not call *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Why-Can-t-People-Walk-in-a-Straight-Line-When-Blindfolded

http://videosift.com/video/Why-Can-t-People-Walk-in-a-Straight-Line-When-Blindfolded

Your video, Why Can't People Walk in a Straight Line When Blindfolded?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm wondering...you're blindfolded but suppose a bit of sun creeps in. Would you be able to keep in more or less a straight line by judging the light on your face?

Do people in Australia walk left in circles while blindfolded?
And why would you move the wheel of the car at all if you thought you were going straight?
Doing these tests on uneven surfaces might be effecting the outcome.

uhm.. maybe cause they're blindfolded. = /

I don't really understand why they thought the blindfold would be improved by a small face blanket. Maybe it's for people that don't like breathing easily while they sleep

That's a crazy show, they do stuff like that all the time. When I was living in Germany they had a kid on who could identify albums (vinyl) blindfolded by running his fingers along the tracks and listening to the slight noise he could get that way.

Reminds me of Simon Pegg's story about Nick Frost stripping an MP5, at 1:10 here.

Wish she'd done it stripped to the waist and blindfolded too.

I like EIA and see it as something completely different than Fail

A video of a guy falling off a cliff is FAIL
A bird falling into water is FAIL
Doing something stupid and failing in an obvious way is a FAIL
Someone getting hit in the genitals with a ball is FAIL

A guy falling off a cliff because he blindfolded himself is EIA
A bird learning to swim is EIA
Germs mutating to evade extinction is EIA
Someone willingly injuring his genitals is EIA

>> ^always:
I purchased The Downward Spiral for the first time in the summer of 1996, when I was thirteen. It was on audio cassette. I would listen to it on my Sony Walkman headphones in the dark after bedtime. Sometimes I would get so scared I'd have to turn it off without making it through both sides all the way to "Hurt." I hadn't ever taken church that seriously, and hearing Trent snarl "god is dead" just seemed to affirm my growing suspicions. I discovered a darkness in myself that summer, a darkness that remains with me to this day. I've since purchased it over a dozen times to give as a gift to friends or to replace my copy which had worn out

There it is. Fan boy gush gush. Hate if you want.


I can relate to your story, except that I was listening to Emperor's "In the Nightside Eclipse" during a bloodletting orgy with a blindfold on.

A little bit of liberty given up for a bit of safety is reasonable...

Really? And yet when I asked you about people driving drunk with blindfolds on you just went on about how useless drunk driving laws where. Do you enjoy being deliberately difficult, or are you changing your position?

You also say that 0.08% is a ridiculous limit for a drunk driving law. I'm fine with questioning the degree of the law, if you are simply arguing that it should be closer to 0.80% than 0.08% that is a different discussion. Every post until now you have given the distinct impression than having any limit what so ever was absolutely unacceptable.

Perhaps I can get a bearing on where your coming from with a simple question. In regards to drunk driving, is there any blood alcohol level limit that you would consider an acceptable absolute maximum when police can arrest you and prevent you from driving?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bmacs27:

Why do statists always use extreme examples of freedom causing dangerous situations? "So a drunk nazi who swerves on the road while shooting up and runs over nuns and kittens and children is fine with Libertarians, huh?"
No. You cannot run over nuns. That would be hurting someone. If you're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be thrown in a cage by men with guns. Why is that such a hard concept for you statists to grasp? Stop living in fear of your neighbor.
"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -Thomas Jefferson


It is an easy concept to grasp, and we all 'get it'. The problem is that most of us see the gaping holes in the concept and you refuse to recognize them when they are pointed out to you.

The real world is not as simple as you suggest. It is not possible to lump actions into the boxes of harm and no harm. The vast majority of actions carry varying probabilities of causing harm, from almost none to almost certain.

A law might exist that bans one from driving on the freeway while drunk and blindfolded. By your rationale, that law would by tyrannical because the driver has not 'yet' hurt anyone. If the police catch that person before they injure anyone, they are to simply let them continue driving drunk and blind folded, for they have caused no harm.

Your logic fails because you insist on oversimplifying things to the point of insanity.

A university teacher of mine has developed a similar machine with force feedback and computer models of heart surgery, specifically infant heart surgery, since it's insanely hard to work with "blindfolded".

See more about it here: http://www.cavi.dk/projects/medicalvisualization.php

friend + blindfold + camera = don't do it