Musicians should also keep in mind that the idea that their music isn't already being distributed for free is a daydream. Preventing free distribution isn't an option, but you can choose to at least be the one to provide it, and in the process make your best appeal to an audience that doesn't yet feel strongly enough to give you money.

I studied French in high school so I understood most of what was in the trailer.. but I had to look up the title (which I translated as "the [something] of the day."

L'Ecume des Jours means, apparently, Froth of the Daydream.

Good soundtrack.

Thanks for the contest and for my awesome prize! As I was drinking my coffee this morning, I was daydreaming about how much better it would taste in a sexy, Videosift mug. Dreams do come true people!

My fave Tycho track - Daydream...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFr9StkVwTk

When I daydream, everything's always exploding. Enormous falling objects are smashing into things with an earth-shaking "boomf", other things are bursting (e.g.: telephone poles hit by high-velocity projectiles), bullet holes are appearing in walls and doors, that sort of thing. When I consider it now, I don't think humans are ever on the receiving end of these daydreams - it's mostly just things.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Agreed. this tape was the soundtrack to our lives back in 1973, it never gets old.
>> ^Hive13:
One of the best albums in the history of music!



This was an album, that when you played it you listened to both sides.
When this came out it was very different than most of the current music being released.
I felt he was way ahead of his time, and only cool people listened to it. Lol
I almost posted the entire album

Agreed. this tape was the soundtrack to our lives back in 1973, it never gets old.
>> ^Hive13:

One of the best albums in the history of music!

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Not gonna upvote it yourself? Geez, you really aren't expecting to garner any votes, are you?


HA! i will vote for it when you do =)
i have to admit i do not like posting audio-only on a video site but that song is just sooo amazng.
it takes me away in a powerful daydream everytime i listen to it.
i hoped you liked it as mush as i.

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Dan_Mangan:So_Much_For_Everyone.

As much as i'd like to go

To places i've never known,

Scared shitless to leave home,

And i don't want to go alone.

I miss the rewarding gaze

Of a friend from my younger days,

Didn't mind 'bout my selfish ways,

As he died i was miles away.

I hope he remembers how,

As i do when i look back now,

Though he'd bark at the slightest sound,

Would not bite for he knew not how.

And sometimes it's more than clear,

When morning comes early here,

And i know that the day is near,

Wasted days make for wasted years.

Now i'm vicious with appetite,

Sobering half a mind,

Dripping with stolen wine,

Awoken by something i dreamt.

Harboured by everything i have been witnessing.

Postcards and daydreaming

Get less embarrassing.

After the day is done,

I will be on the run -

So much for everyone, so much for everyone.

The showdown is endless here,

Under the burning sun.

As eyes roll toward me now,

I will drop my gun.

Light doesn't have one set speed. Each frequency of light travels at slightly different speeds. I've long had this theory, and NASA has since confirmed it. We have detected very slight differences in the time it takes different frequencies of light to travel a set distance.

As such, we cannot say light has "a" speed, but rather a range of speeds. Therefore, could it also then be possible that the speed of an individual photon can be adjusted by various means in order to either speed up or slow down?

The answer is yes. Scientists have managed to slow the "speed of light" all the way down to 38mph. How is this possible? Well, as light has mass (albeit, a very miniscule amount), it will slow when traveling through a material, such as water, glass, oil, or even air. Passing the light through a super-dense, ultra-cooled material magnifies this effect.

As we already know different frequencies of light travel at slightly different speeds, and as we also already know, we can only visibly perceive a very narrow range of frequencies (for example, we cannot see infra-red or ultra-violet, or x- or gamma-rays), isn't it then perceivable that there are frequencies of light outside of what we can see that do travel faster than "the speed of light"?

And if this is true, then what else could travel faster? Are there things we can't even hope to detect simply because they exist in our timeframe for an impossibly short amount of time?

Part of the reason light is able to travel as fast as it does is its incredibly small (by our standards anyway) mass. What if mass is infinite? What if you could shrink yourself down to the size of a photon, or better yet, small enough to live on that photon as if it were the Earth. From your new perspective, the photon would appear to be very large, and as you are now traveling with it, that photon does not seem to be going as fast. You may see things that are even smaller and appear to move even more quickly, but something like the Earth would be imperceptible to you because you are so miniscule. It would be as the Universe to you--impossibly large, and inconceivably tangible. While you would know it is there, it would stand before you as a gigantic, unknowable concept, and things even larger than that would exist merely as mists of an imaginary daydream.

Now, imagine that the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite in both directions as well. Consider the possibility that, along with light, x-rays, gamma radiation, radio waves, and all the other things we know to make up the electromagnetic spectrum, sound is also part of that spectrum. Consider that light, being high in frequency exists near the top of what we can perceive of the spectrum, and sound is near the bottom. The vibrations become so slow and so wide toward the bottom that they effect the air and other matter around us, creating sound. And while we cannot see it, we perceive it with other sensory organs. Imagine that you could slow down light to the point that you can hear it, or speed up sound to the point that you can see it.

Now take another hit before that feeling goes away.

@dannym3141 Thanks for the thought-out response, I can tell you have strong opinion on the topic of education and I appreciate the discourse. The AA analogy was not meant as a strict analogy between the services rendered in their respective classes, it was meant to imply that just because the majority population in a voluntary environment wants to do something doesn't mean it will be beneficial to them in the end. In this case the restriction placed on drinking beer at an AA meeting is very similar to phone usage in large classrooms in that it is detrimental to the student and everyone around them.

I do understand the desire to quickly check something online for clarification (terms perhaps) BUT there are a lot of studies that indicating that the increased availability and instant gratification of just googling something to remember a term is harmful for long term retention. There are also multiple studies indicating that ability to multitask also goes way down despite the common misconception that constant usage of mobile devices enhances that ability. In a classroom environment, say your physics class, I would highly recommend that if you are confused on something to ask your instructor to clarify or provide context or examples of confusing topics or terms rather than looking them up.

Now, let's be a little more realistic here and point out that there is no way that everyone on their phone in class is using it to help them learn. Most of the time they are texting, twittering facebooking, etc. which is a waste of time. First of all, I want to say that I don't care, you're paying, you can do what you want, and at some level I do agree with that, but the problem is if you are anywhere near another person, which is hard to avoid in a classroom, you are almost certainly distracting them. In my large lectures, everyone on a laptop has to sit in the back so they aren't bothering the people behind them. Phones are a bigger problem since everyone has them and the addiction to the stupid things is such a distraction to them personally just because of constant desire to just check something real quick.

Anyway, there are legitimate ways around this and I employ them. The key is to keep them engaged so they are too "distracted" by learning to bother with their stupid phones. Basically, strict lecture is broken up by multiple class exercises. Drawing things, predictive demos, retrieval practices, think-pair-share, wall walks, conceptest, etc. etc. Ways to make them engaged and THINK about learning instead of just sitting there hearing things all day. These are effective teaching methods and help to keep students motivated and entertained.

As far as actually implementing a blocking system, I know it's not going to happen (for all the reasons you described), but to argue that you should be able to use your phone in class if you like will never be something I'm on board with. Laptops are theoretically being used to take notes (even though they usually aren't) but a phone has no place in class unless it's being used for some form of directed classroom participation (clickers, specific apps, demos) because you can't do anything constructive with it that couldn't be done better by student-teacher interaction. Question is asking is also better than quick checking a phone as other students also benefit from the clarification of something that was probably not explained very well.

I guess if there is a silver lining it's that the constant use of phones has forced a lot of educators to adjust their teaching to adapt to the problems that were always there but were less obvious without the visual clue of students playing on their phones. Before they were daydreaming, now they're playing on the phone. The main difference, from my perspective, is that daydreaming doesn't distract your neighbor, but your phone does.

Thanks for the responses, I'm always open to opinions, especially when they're wildly different from my own.

The US's debt is only about 80% of GDP, I say only because Japan's is 200%. The fact of the matter is, even if the US does nothing, being the reserve currency and the most widely used currency for transactions means that yields on bonds are unlikely to spike so much as gradually creep up if nothing is done. It is going to cause an apocalypse tomorrow or even in 2 years time, but it will continue to hurt the economy more and more until something is done about it.

What's needed is a commitment now to moderate reduction in discrentionary/compulsory spending and moderate increases in taxes that will kick in 3 maybe 6 years down the track. It undoubtedly should be reduced in the long term but in the short term what the economy needs is fiscal stimulus.

The spending needed particularly right now is investment in retraining of workers to needed roles or subsidising apprenticeships/on the job training, because fact is the GFC created masses amounts of structural unemployment, people who with their skills, do not have the capacity to enter available employment. Infrastructure and R&D would also help to prop up a bearish economy.

The economy may return to growth with continued austerity but the cost would be an increase in the permanently unemployed as it has been clearly shown that substantial portions of people who stay unemployed for prolonged periods of time essentially become unemployable.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/29/ben-bernanke-embraces-obamas-reality-based-presidency/

This isn't a particularly good article but read the lines that he quotes from Bernanke. This is a concise, frank and objective opinion by an individual not bound to populist dogma or partisan slogans.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Previous comments notwithstanding, I actually believe that Ron Paul is a stand-up guy who says what he sees as the truth--and won't change what he says because of a poll. I could really get behind him if he would just embrace a rational, twenty-first century fiscal policy.

Problem Boise, who has had a sound fiscal policy?
We have how much in debt, 20 trillion? 30? 50? I don't know because they have hidden debt so well that it scares the fuck out of me. The fed could borrow and loan unlimited amounts, which is part of what we would owe...not to mention liabilities and such... Plus rotten infrastructure, half-assed programs that accomplish little, and so much more...
Is RP's policies worse than what has happened? I doubt it... But we will elect the same guys, just with different faces, who do this every time; because we vote on platform, not on actual people.
Here is a saying I made the other day while daydreaming about becoming a tyrant, I mean Congressman. "If you vote for an honest man you won't get everything you want. But if you vote for a liar you get what you deserve."

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Previous comments notwithstanding, I actually believe that Ron Paul is a stand-up guy who says what he sees as the truth--and won't change what he says because of a poll. I could really get behind him if he would just embrace a rational, twenty-first century fiscal policy.


Problem Boise, who has had a sound fiscal policy?

We have how much in debt, 20 trillion? 30? 50? I don't know because they have hidden debt so well that it scares the fuck out of me. The fed could borrow and loan unlimited amounts, which is part of what we would owe...not to mention liabilities and such... Plus rotten infrastructure, half-assed programs that accomplish little, and so much more...

Is RP's policies worse than what has happened? I doubt it... But we will elect the same guys, just with different faces, who do this every time; because we vote on platform, not on actual people.

Here is a saying I made the other day while daydreaming about becoming a tyrant, I mean Congressman. "If you vote for an honest man you won't get everything you want. But if you vote for a liar you get what you deserve."

>> ^blankfist:

I know he doesn't "want" war, but he certainly lauds it as a successful way to stimulate a weakened economy. That's exactly what I wrote above. Go reread my comments.

Your comment:

>> ^blankfist:

Krugman doesn't care about the casualties, it's about the numbers. To him war is good because it creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Peace is bad.
This is why Keynesian economics is such bullshit.


In any case, you're still making the same mistake. Krugman isn't advocating going to war. Krugman isn't "laud[ing] it as a successful way to stimulate a weakened economy." He doesn't think war is a net positive for human welfare.

He's saying fiscal stimulus is a successful way to stimulate a weakened economy. He wants us to do it without fighting anyone, but the right-wing is standing in the way of all non-defense government spending.

So he's daydreaming of a scenario in which the right is tricked into going along with stimulus, without actually needing to kill anyone.

...and you're trying to make it into "Paul Krugman wants recommends a war to fix the economy!"

I seriously thought you may have some connection to Hewlett Packard (stock symbol: HPQ)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
1. One of my earliest memories is being on a boat between Japan and Korea during a sea storm. Rolling around in the room as the boat was rocked was terrible fun to the 3-year-old I was.

2. I been to more countries then I care to mention. People are really all the same all over. I hate big cities.

3. Played in a mine field for a whole afternoon. The next day a farmer died there. For the year we lived on Croatia's border we could hear/feel the bombs shake the house.

4. Am often told I do not act my gender. Sometimes I play it up on purpose.

5. Am not afraid of nor particularly moved by death. This causes me problems with my family when relatives/siblings die.

6. Am a pretty good shot with both ARs and handguns, even won a few medals in my teens. Stopped shooting because the atmosphere at the club was sexist/macho. At least I'm ready for the Zombie Apocalypse, and can take photos without a tripod at 1" exposure.

7. Like to use quotes from an opponent in a debate to attack their argument. Like to debate in general. i can be argumentative just for the sake of being contrary.

8. I dreamed of being multi-lingual as a child. I'm better at writing than talking. I was the first (and only) in my family to go to University.

9. Grew up in a fundie christian family. Read the Bible innumerable amount of times, learned verses and whole chapters by heart. Am now atheist and antitheist, like most of my family.

10. Been diagnosed schizoide, borderline, bipolar, etc. Take antidepressants to avoid incapacitating breakdowns.

11. 90% of my waking life has been spent procrastinating. VS is my latest fix, and the only online community I've ever become a part of.

12. I love dreaming. Most of my best memories are from my dreams. I daydream often, but retain full situational awareness. Lucid dreaming is awesome.

13. All of the major injuries I've sustained were self-inflicted, albeit by accident. Never broke a bone, but my body is always sore (and not always in a good way).

14. Originally left-handed, but forced to be right-handed during childhood because left-handedness is of the devil. Leftie is now my primary masturbation hand <img src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/xd3.gif" class="smiley" />

15. I watch porn at least once a week. Consider myself a feminist.

16. Grew up around boys. I don't really count my first time as my first time. Hardly any one I know knows about my first time.

17. Have never been in a successful relationship. Longest and most enjoyable was as someone's lover/fuckbuddy.

18. I have no patience for stupid people.

19. I've never even been tempted to try drugs, cigarettes. Stopped drinking before turning 18. I have little enough control of my brain and emotions as is.

20. I love cinema, I think cinema is humanity reflected, our dreams, desires, hopes, fears and experiences. When watching a movie, I am frequently the only person laughing.

21. I don't really like being the center of attention.

22. My profile name is not an acronym. When I started using the webs I wanted a username that was anonymous and meaningless to all but myself. It is supposed to be an obscurely emoticon-ish version of Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet.

23. Forbidden Planet freaked me out when I first saw it as a kid. It is still one of my favourite sci-fi movies. I would like to write an SF novel, but fear I lack the discipline and talent.

24. Like to think I'm special/unique, but know that I'm not. Some of this list is copy-pasta'd from others' posts, but also applies for me. (can you find which parts? : )

25. I still have absolutely no clue what I want to do with my life.