@chilaxe , I don't see any hostility in my post. I supported my assertions with a full study and a news article; finally concluding that in the face of such data, your claims about the jury composition have little weight.

As always, I'm hostile towards your flawed logic and questionable conclusions, not you personally.

"The roughly 15 feet of rocket above the intertank bulkhead, including the fuel tank, composite pressurization tank, computer, payload, four HD cameras, and recovery flyback system were compressed into about two feet. "
Ouch

Aside from other obvious aspects of it the most telling thing is that no person would fly that high without safety equipment especially with this kind of device.

other obvious points

1) the body language of the people walking away is really ridged

2) the volume decreases specifcaly so you can hear what the guy says its likely they redubed the sound over the top of the video. ( yet used crap quality film cameras)

3) wings are to small to provide life at such a low forwards momentum and flapping would simply detract from the lift provided.

4) if it was windy enoughf for lift then the guy would start to get lift before he moved ( you will see when birds go to fly if its a windy day extending there wings is prity much all it takes for them to begin flying.

5) you can see that the way he bobs up and down dosent look right at all

6) If you were doing this for real you would film it all with HD camaras and probably get sponsorship from a company to pay for it all.

7) the method of control would be too inprocise even if you went for automated flapping you would use some linear input for the pilot as a human does not have an intuitive sense for how arms should be flapped and then the whole system to translate that would be needlessly complex.

prevouse videos they have made all seem to have stiff acting , sound of the robotics added on top of the video and composited CGI.

Europa has a thick layer of ice, maybe a few or several miles thick, under which is a very deep liquid ocean, but "its bulk density suggests that it is similar in composition to the terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of silicate rock." According to the researchers, "GJ1214b’s radius could be explained by a bulk composition consisting of an ice-rock core surrounded by a H/He/H₂O envelope that has a water mass fraction of 50-85%."

GJ1214b is a giant ball of water 2.7 times the Earth's diameter (Uranus is about 4 times, Saturn about 9). The water must be (tens of) thousands of miles deep. There's nothing like it in our system. I can't even begin to imagine what happens to water at that kind of depth and pressure. What bizarre properties it must have. They mention superfluids and hot ice in the article, but I suspect it's even weirder.
>> ^gwiz665:
Isn't Europa actually made almost entirely of ice? Europa the moon around Jupiter, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.

How about you start by debunking the thousands of studies supporting anthropogenic climate change? More importantly, what makes you think those 450+ studies are more reliable than the pro-climate change studies? Usually, when I see a debate with a vast majority of scientists on one side and a tiny minority on the other, I believe the majority. This isn't a perfect heuristic, but it's a pretty good one. Do you have any good reason to believe the heuristic fails in this instance? What is it that has convinced you the majority is wrong?

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!".

What? This is the stupidest analogy ever. Saying "Look at all this peer reviewed scientific research" is somehow equivalent to "God told me so"?

And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

This is only true if atheists in church are usually dismissed using careful peer-reviewed scientific research, along the lines of this or this.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

And of course there's no money at all to be made in debunking climate change. Dude, the oil industry pumps millions of dollars into research that criticizes the consensus. After the last IPCC report came out, the American Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon) offered $10,000 to anyone who published an article criticizing the report. If you think money is skewing incentives on the pro-AGW side, why don't you apply the same standards to the denialist side?

Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC).

Care to point out where ChaosEngine made an old and already debunked argument? And just because science is falsifiable doesn't mean that science can never be settled on an issue. The debate about the chemical composition of the sun is over. That doesn't mean that those claims are not falsifiable.

I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

I know. Very sad. Let me play you the world's saddest song on the world's tiniest violin. Especially after you called ChaosEngine ignorant and stupid and then complained about how sad rhetoric like "Christy Crocks" is.

That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue... Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then.

Climate science is not a science that is known well be humankind, but it is apparently known well by coolhund-kind. Please tell us how you came up with this forecast, and why you think it is more reliable than the forecasts of, you know, actual experts.

The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW.

True, but irrelevant, since there is AGW.

You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life.

OK, so the thousands of climate scientists who claim to believe in AGW are lying to keep their jobs. Confusingly, a number of global warming skeptics are able to keep their jobs without pretending to believe in AGW. Someone needs to figure out how they managed to beat the corrupt system. Maybe they have compromising pictures of Al Gore?

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

What a pointless digression. America is not the only country in the world where scientists believe in AGW. The national science academy in Germany, your paragon for a skeptical country, has also endorsed the IPCC report. So whether or not Americans are easy to fool is completely irrelevant here. Incidentally, 59% of German people believe that global warming is due to human activity. Only 49% of Americans believe this. So maybe you're right -- Americans are easy to fool. You're just wrong about who's fooling them.

"The Nokia tune (also called Grande Valse on old Nokia mobile phones) is a phrase from a composition for solo guitar, Gran Vals, by the Spanish classical guitarist and composer Francisco Tárrega, written in 1902." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_tune

What about the 911 tat on his neck. From where I viewed this video, it was totally composited. Like totally wiped out. Perhaps filtered?

>> ^marinara:

i don't expect people to know this, but fluoride in the water acts just like the active part of the prozac molecule (the Fluoxetine) molecule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozac


Maybe most people don't know it because there's no actual evidence of it? Just more CT whackery...like chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and grays living in underground cities.

Sadly, most people clearly don't know enough about chemistry to realize that sodium flouride is a totally different animal than Flouxetine. The structure of chemical compounds has far more to do with their effects than the composition. Or else there would be no difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates, "Would you like one lump of tar, or two in your tea?"

(example stolen from a post in James Randi's forums, and modified slightly).


NONE of which has the slightest bearing on this video. My apologies for allowing/assisting the diversion.

>> ^Deano:

In defence of the explosions, would the charges not be under the ground and thus behave more or less as depicted? They would blast up earth and grass but the pyrotechnics would be hidden?


No, it's nothing to do with there not being fire etc. It's to do with it looking REALLY like CGI. Really poorly composited, really 'unreal', really... just crap.

>> ^messenger:

Such fast cameras could be used to determine which slit a photon goes through, no? I mean, in a single frame, not a composite shot, obviously. And used with a photon pump laser, not a photon clump.


The short answer, no. In short, you wouldn't be able to see a single photon, because it can only detect light that strikes the camera itself. the case you see in this clip is a pulse that is very dense with photons, and that are flying everywhere. Consequently, the light you see is not light that is actually going forward, and therefore, not light that is going through the slit.

If you positioned the camera on the other side of the slit, you would see light that has recently passed through the slit, but that wouldn't tell you anything about which slit or slits the photon passed through.

Also, its worth noting that monochromatic light does not need two slits in order to exhibit a diffraction pattern. However tech such as this could definitely be re-purposed similarly to an SEM in order to accept electron emissions rather than photons, which would make some interesting vacuum electron scattering experiments.

Such fast cameras could be used to determine which slit a photon goes through, no? I mean, in a single frame, not a composite shot, obviously. And used with a photon pump laser, not a photon clump.

Just to clarify/echo the content of the video, they do not have a camera that is actually capable of taking 1 trillion frames per second. They are simulating that ability by having a laser continually shooting pulses of light, and then having the camera take a picture at a different slice in the travel of the photon by moving the mirror accordingly. Eventually the mirror captures every relevant interval of the path of the photon, composites the images, and generates an animation like the one with the soda bottle. Very clever piece of science and engineering.

>> ^grinter:

Taking control of the drone sounds pretty unlikely.. but I wonder if there is a kernel of truth to this. Maybe they just jammed it's guidance signal, autopilot kicked in, and when it ran out of fuel it glided to a, relatively, gentle landing?


I would take a wild guess that those things are designed to go kaboom if there is even the slightest hint of malfunction (malfunction meaning ANY undesired event). The interesting part was the fact that the CIA lead on that perhaps that exact sequence of events didn't quite occur correctly maybe.

Also yes, that is a fake airplane... The drones are MUCH bigger than that piece of crap, paper-mâché high school project. For example this is a bomber drone that is brand new, it's 65 to a possible 90 feet across (BTW, in the video you can see that they label it as the RQ-170, which is what I linked to)... Like I said it's a bomber, it needs to be pretty big. So unless the CIA has a stealth version that is 3/4 the size of the bomber, they are full of crap. I think what the CIA was worried about is maybe that the entirety of the drone wasn't destroyed leaving possible tidbits behind like it's stealth mesh and other composites to be reverse engineered--I think TDS had a bit on this a few days ago.

-Second Part
I did look around some more and there are some US officials taking this very seriously, so maybe they do in fact have their 45~ft drone. If you read at the bottom of the RQ-170 on Wikipedia (I linked it above), it has been updated with much more current information. So it may indeed be a small coup for the Iranian Military indirectly, as it seems to be a navigational flight error. Which asks the question: where the hell is it's self-destruction switch; are they really that stupid?

As far as I've read, the only things we know are the size of the planet and the distance from its star. We have no idea of the exact mass (other than that it's relatively low, which is a good thing), composition, atmosphere, or actual habitability of the planet, just that it's located in the "habitable zone". That is all!

So, no, we have no clue if there's water and since temperature is subject to other factors (the one's which we have no information on yet) besides solely the distance from its star, we can't really say it's life-sustaining either.

>> ^Skeeve:

Agreed, for the most part.
He obviously has talent, but to be a great artist one tends to need life experience (often of a darker nature) and that is something he doesn't have.
It should come with time though.
As for why we haven't seen a Mozart, etc. in hundreds of years, maybe its because the great artists of our time aren't composing classical music (which tends to cultivate the misbelief that it is somehow superior). Now, I'm a fan of classical music, but listen to While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Gimme Shelter, or All Along the Watchtower and tell me you don't feel as moved as when listening to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, or The Marriage of Figaro.
>> ^TheFreak:
Bullshit.
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.
That 60 Minutes segment describes Jay's early and enduring interest in writing music. I believe that's about the only element of the story that's not pure hyperbole. From listening to his music you can tell that he has obviously learned a great deal at a young age about arranging orchestral music. He has knowledge. What he lacks is everything else necessary to create great music.
Boys his age do one thing with great expertise and skill....masturbate. And that's what "Blue Bird" is doing with his music...masturbating all up in your ear holes.
Jay Greenergs interest and dedication to study clasical music composition, as well as the encouragement he's received, has brought him a long way. The real shame is the uncritical feedback he's getting from the people around him. Without anyone to tell him that his music is ham fisted and clumsy there's every likelyhood that his narcisistic self appraisal will lead him to nothing.
Jay Greenberg has demonstrated an impressive ability to learn how to compose in a classical style. It remains to be seen if he can turn that technical skill into artistic achievement.



Brilliantly said. If you really listen to some music of "recent" times, it can be amazing. Gimme Shelter is a perfect example. Listening for the voice cracks when the lyric is being yelled "rape! murder!".. I could reel off an entire bunch of pink floyd songs that i think are on par with classical music.

I think that the reason there were "more musical genius" around back then is for several reasons - what else was there for an intelligent and interested young person to do then? Let's face it, the most interesting thing around back then was a piano. We have more instruments now, the world is more connected, we can sample each other's music and combine it. There's too many reasons. And you died by the time you were 40, so when else were you gonna do your burst of creativity if not from a young age?