search results matching tag: cells

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (756)     Sift Talk (26)     Blogs (51)     Comments (1000)   

What Really Separates the Rich From the Poor

newtboy says...

*commercial
Tommy's a moron, John is smart. It's utter bullshit that they have the same intelligence but one makes only stupid decisions and the other only smart decisions.

Trait number 5 is also absolute bullshit. The rich consistently blame others for their failures and never take responsibility for them, only their successes....see DJT.

According to the narrator, I should downvote since I enjoy learning about the cells of a leaf.

Near miss

SFOGuy says...

May not have been a deliberate act; head down, looking into a cell phone, stepping off the bridge to use the head (toilet)--no watch, no radar alert---and then you have a lot of mass moving really pretty darn quick and a collision course.

fuzzyundies said:

This looks like a game of high-stakes chicken. There are a set of international collision regulations (COLREGS) that every cadet all over the world has to learn by heart to gain a certificate of competency.

Sometimes these rules are inaccurately reduced to "right of way" rules. In fact, the rules oblige actions on all ships in a potential collision situation: one will be the "stand-on vessel", and the other will be the "give-way vessel": obliged to make an early and obvious maneuver to avoid the collision, in a prescribed direction (generally turn to starboard). The ships involved can instead get on the radio and negotiate a different plan, but absent that, these are the rules.

One rule governs overtaking, where the vessel being overtaken is the "stand-on vessel" and the vessel overtaking is the "give-way vessel". Another governs crossing, where in a crossing path situation the vessel which has the other ship to port (on the left, looking forward) is the "stand-on vessel" and the other is the "give-way vessel".

So in the situation we see in the video, the ship in which we are standing is clearly to port of the other vessel and so would be the "give-way" vessel. It should have made a slight starboard turn much much much earlier to pass behind the other vessel.

Except what if the other vessel overtook this ship and passed in front? This happens sometimes, where a vessel in a hurry and in the "give-way" position decides to make an early change to put it in the "stand-on" position and force the other ship to move. This is what's known internationally as a "dick move" and probably criminal.

Unless we have the full radar track for both ships we can't know who was at fault. Since they thankfully didn't collide, the MAIB won't have to figure this out and send anyone to jail.

Skilift in georgia goes mad

Emotional support Peacock turned away by United Airlines

ulysses1904 says...

I'm starting a social media campaign to hurt the airline financially because they didn't provide a gluten-free organic lactose-free vegan low-fat meal option for my service rhino. And then I overheard two flight attendants sounding annoyed with my demands so I published the home phone number of the airline CEO. Fucking attention-whores.

Ever read Stephen King's book "The Cell", where people's brains are damaged by cell phones? Look for it in the non-fiction section.

New Rule: Distinction Deniers

ChaosEngine says...

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.

JiggaJonson said:

quoted in comment

New Rule: Distinction Deniers

ChaosEngine says...

Sure, but why does he then spend the rest of the argument talking about how one isn't as bad as the other?

It just feels like making excuses.

Yeah, we get it. Rape > groping > other dumb shit.

Mike Pence is not as bad as ISIS. There, I said it. Congratulations on passing the lowest bar possible. I still don't want him as president.

Even if Minnie Driver makes a stupid comment, she's not a spokesperson for everyone who supports #metoo.

The fundamental point to me is that senator's quote.
"I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation.... You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable"

So Bill wants to have "an additional conversation". Ok, WHY? What is driving this additional conversation? Why do we need to have it and is it distracting from the more important conversation we should be having?

I'm not worried about the distinction between the varying levels of assault, except as a means for deciding how to deal with the perpetrator.

But that's not the conversation that's happening at the moment. If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". But in terms of saying "stop being a dick", yeah, I'm happy to say that to both of them.

I know that you and @newtboy and @Payback understand that groping and harassment (even if they are not as heinous as rape) are things you shouldn't do. That's 'cos you're decent human beings.

But you guys are not the people we need to talk to.

JiggaJonson said:

@ChaosEngine @Payback, @newtboy

Don't have time for a lengthy comment, but Chaos, he makes a point of overstating that BOTH --- ARE UN-acceptable.

Payback & Newt, I agree

newtboy (Member Profile)

Dear Satan

shinyblurry says...

God verifies His word, as He did to me. I wasn't looking for Him and He showed up in my life and revealed that He is God. If you don't believe, ask God to help your unbelief.

Rejecting Jesus Christ is like kicking the key back out of your jail cell and then complaining that you can't get out. Your choice is to either pay for your own sins or let Jesus pay for them.

newtboy said:

Please explain why God made his own word so easy to misidentify, mirror, confuse, contradict with fact and logic, and to use for evil.
Sounds to me like he fucked up big time by not identifying himself clearly when he speaks, and by not identifying false profits as false, thereby causing most of the evil in the world because he's lazy and can't be bothered to be unambiguous.

If Jesus died to erase all our sins, how does that cover murder, rape, torture, hate, lies, etc. but not include the one unforgivable sin of disbelief in the completely unbelievable? Pretty lame and self serving saviour imo.

Dashcam Video Of Alabama Cop Who Shot Man Holding His Wallet

newtboy says...

Wallets, and cell phones, hair brushes, glasses cases, envelopes, small boxes, sticks, juice boxes, seat belts, toy trucks, cigarettes, cigars .....pretty much anything you can hold in your hand.
A better idea is just ban hands. No hands, you know there's no gun in their hands, problem solved. Then you don't even have to touch the second amendment to end gun violence, guns are pretty safe without fingers.
Glad that issue is resolved.

sickio said:

Maybe the US should ban wallets, easier than banning guns at least.

Turning Gas Guzzlers Into Clean Cars

cosmovitelli says...

You'd want to match weight distribution so clusters of Li cells around the engine compartment and fuel tank might work well.

visionep said:

It doesn't even look like these guy's are using advanced batteries. Small LI batteries distributed around the open areas of the car would make weight distribution better and probably provide a much higher total range.

Maybe they are keeping it simple for cost reasons.

Kid reacting to VR rollercoaster thrill ride

00Scud00 says...

I wonder how these cell phone based VR setups compare to more traditional ones like Oculus Rift or the HTC Vive. Are they as immersive, or are they more like a poor mans VR solution.

Emergence – How Stupid Things Become Smart Together

oritteropo says...

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Evo-Devo-Despacito-Biology-Parody-A-Capella-Science (about the atoms, molecules, and cells making up creatures or people)
*doublepromote

Is It Dangerous To Talk To A Camera While Driving?

MilkmanDan says...

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

What if we get really good at drone AI and batteries?

Payback says...

Hydrogen fuel cells show promise for our new AI drone overlords.

Also, with the militarization of police departments, I doubt it will be a decade before they stop sending out manned patrol cars and switch over to fully-armed air and land drones.

Sticking Together, No Matter What



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