A bit misleading. MP3 is stored as frames, uncompressed audio is not. This causes tiny phase differences that when nulled causes the differences to be much larger than what they actually are. Don't get me wrong, the resulting sound resembles what we hear in this clip, just with LOT less transients (beginning of sound, for ex "t" in "the"). If you want a true difference between MP3 and uncompressed, it needs to be resynced each frame. The further the clip advances, the differences grow to be larger and larger as the two streams drift apart more and more.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Train-plows-through-huge-snow-drifts-in-Canada

Your video, Russian Drifting, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

As a former hockey player I'll have to disagree with most of your comment. There is rarely any attempt to injure in a hockey fight and I've never heard of any hockey player pulling punches. The objective is to be perceived to have won the fight to help get your teammates and fans hyped up or to have taught a lesson. To that end you try your best to hit your hardest. Unfortunately Newton's pesky third law of motion comes into play and makes it very difficult to deliver any really dangerous blows. That's why hockey fighters always hang on to their opponents jersey so they don't drift apart or fall down.

As pointed out the worst common injuries in Hockey come from high speed blows to the head or stick injuries such as to the eye. The worst uncommon injury is a skate blade to the neck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ295luzhtQ

All that being said, the kind of fighting in this video is stupid and boring to me. If I want to see that I'll rent "Slapshot".

This sounds like another great reason to grow your own produce. Then, with the exception of airborne chemicals you can't avoid, you can know what's gone into your own food, and decide for your self which chemicals are acceptable and which aren't. Strawberries are fairly easy to grow. I have 4 large beds of them, all started from one $3 6pack 5 years ago and grown on cheap, plentiful poo, not man made chemicals. Egg shells and horticulture oil work as good as most pesticides, and do no harm. I still lose 20% to pests, but I just grow 300% more than we can eat, so no problem.
I get not everyone can subsistence farm at home, but almost everyone has a window they can put a potted strawberry in....or a pineberry (a new variety, pineapple flavored strawberries).

They ignored the fact that other crops are grown next to the berries that may absorb the toxic chemicals, and that other chemicals are put on those other crops that also drift to the berries, contaminating them with other poisons. I'm glad they did at least mention direct neighborhood contamination.

The last thing he should see is a Wookie poking his head up from behind a snow drift.

That was one hell of a lot of road closures.
Formula drift sure has upped their game as far as locations go.

*quality for the drifting, let alone the jump!

@gorillaman @ChaosEngine

Fast & Furious (which is part 4) was the first step in the right direction as the first in the series to start a transition, although only marginally, out of a fun-but-really-stupid category of action flick. Tokyo Drift was definitely the worst of them. (I'm just hoping the tie-in with part 7 and the return of Lucas Black will somehow make up for its existence; introducing us to Han's back story in Fast Five helped.)

Fast Five was the first good flick on its upswing toward world domination because it was much less dumb, but had a much richer story, better characters, incredible practical effects, a huge, diverse cast, and awesome international settings. This was the first time it was much more kick-ass than pure roll-your-eyes-and-sigh maximum-dumb-shitatude accompanying the action.

Fast & Furious 6 continued to prove they were onto a winning formula and continued that trend. (However, there's a fucking-stupid ~9 minute fight on an airplane WHILE it is driving at near-takeoff speeds on a runway. I did some calculations the last time I watched it and remember thinking they had to be on like a 20-mile-long runway. Come on guys, it's called editing; or at least have some phony excuse for that bullshitestry. But I digress.)

One of the most compelling parts of both parts 5 and 6 were some kick-ass (though of course impossible) practical stunt sequences that may have been the first I've seen as a fully-grown man to earn me a visceral ear-to-ear grin and cause me to unintentionally, audibly say "Holy shit!" in the movie theater.

Can't wait for part 7 and I hope they are able to just keep churning them out, despite the unfortunate loss of Paul Walker because these are some seriously ass-kicking action flicks.

So when exactly did this franchise get great? I remember a time when credible people couldn't stop screaming about how awesome Fast Five, I think, was, and I resolved to eventually get on the furiouswagon. Tokyo Drift was garbage, I know that much.

Most of those street crashes came from people not realizing that sometimes hitting the gas even HARDER is your safest course of action.

Trying to do a straight burnout, starts to drift, lifts off the gas, keeps drifting, crashes. If they had just matted the gas and did a doughnut, the inertia would be bled off by the ass end, causing the fronts to stick and spin them away from the various objects.

Yeah, but they are looking for funding, so someone is going to pony up. I watched the video. Most of what they show is a Hubsan FPV quad that you can get through places like Banggood it uses a spreadspectrum 5.4 system to broadcast the video and a 2.4 system for control, but it does not have any autonomous capabilities. Hubsan makes some of the best stuff out there and we work very closely with them. The wrist thing is cludgey, and while it conveys the idea (You can see the needed twist I was talking about), it wont get them anywhere near their presented final design. Wifi would be an option, but it would require a wifi hotspot be built into the quad. I know we aren't talking about components that require a bunch of power, but we are talking about small batteries, so every mV counts. Especially for something that is wearable.
Now the Hexo+ is very much like the Airdog. Both seem very viable and are using existing technologies. My only concern about either is what do they do about object avoidance and low battery response. In either situation you can wind up losing the vehicle or injuring someone. Most higher end quadcopters have the ability to Return To Home (RTH) which is great since the pilot is in a stationary position, but put a pilot on the move and things get weird. If you are out surfing and the quad gets a low battery warning due to either a battery failure or having been waiting for 30 minutes for you to catch a wave, where does it go? It could go back to the take-off position, but if you drifted from there then it will need to calculate that distance and make sure it can get back. Salt water and electronics don't play well together. If you take your quad with you for a ride on a skateboard down the boardwalk, how do you make sure it doesn't hit a light post or a tree while it is zipping after you? You could fly at a higher altitude, but the zoom lens on the camera may not be enough. Hexo+ has a video of the founder riding a skateboard while the quad films. Notice that he stops short of going into the wooded area. I wonder why?
There are issues, but at least in both cases I think they are starting from proven technologies and have footprints that are achievable.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.