Hmmm. Doesn't LOOK windy enough, but ---Resonant frequencies?
Galloping Gertie, the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw

Degassed water helps, too.

We did this as an experiment in undergrad. Degassed water, a container with a simple shape (we just had a rectangular prism), a thing to vibrate it, and a thing to control the amplitude/frequency of vibrations. We usually got three or four nodes, depending on how good we were doing.

It was quite a while ago, but I think we had a piece of equipment we used to tell whether we were getting close to a resonance, and then it was just by feel to actually get sonoluminescence to happen. Cuts down on the amount of patience required, but still takes a bit.

It's not SUCH a bad idea if they don't hang out near those RF's for more than a few ticks...That massive antennae is blasting out radio frequencies that are right at the max of non-hazardous (ionizing) levels. Best they don't stay too long at the base of that monster! Bet it makes one's nose tickle and head begin to ache after about 45 minutes around it.

Vizslas are beautiful! Is the ring possibly emitting a high frequency tone we can't hear or is this dog just nuts?

There isnt a constant stream of electricity. Most eletric fences work with long pulse frequencies. You can touch, there is nothing and then suddenly ... IHHHHHHHH!

Ok, I'll start with a few things that most people would probably agree with, but the police force currently would fight like hell to avoid. How about we decide to actually punish cops who break existing rules and laws. Use testing to weed out unbalanced power hungry or corrupt types from becoming cops. QUIT hiring COMBAT veterans to become PEACE officers. I'm sure there are many things that could be done to fix the problem with the police, its just that it's not being done because the police think the only problem is that we, the lowly people, dont always follow ALL commands,and sometimes we need to be put in our place. >> ^shveddy:
False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.
Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.
Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?
Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:
One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.
Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...
...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.
Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.
Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.
If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.
I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.

Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.

Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?

Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:

One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.

Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...

...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.

Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.

Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.

If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.

I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

My guess is that in order for the two bodies of water (the main body and each droplet) to coalesce, their molecules have to agree on a resonating frequency. When there is no other interference, the droplets take on the frequency of the larger body almost immediately. Since the main body is resonating at a frequency above normal, the droplets can't "catch up", and so bounce and wobble along, trying to achieve equilibrium with the larger body, and failing.

Just a guess.

Nah, its clearly Seige Tanks and Science Vessel

Ok, so they use different frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum to select different robots. I was doing that when I was 12 years old. My brother and
I both had remote control cars. If we wanted to use them at the same time we had to use different frequency crystals. Planes are equipped with a transponder which broadcasts an identification and sometimes altitude so ground radar can tag them more effectively. Couldn't you basically do the same thing with these robots, or just use the same process as in this video only instead of using the visible spectrum just use a lower frequency wave and all its advantages.

Or, you could actually use the advantages of high frequency and "point" at the robots you wanted to select rather than broadcasting to all of them and selecting through a process of elimination (which could take a while if you wanted to select multiple robots out of a large group).

So yah, I agree with everybody else. Unless they have some very specific design contraints this doesn't seem like a very elegant solution (although it does utilise the hardware they already have - cameras and lights).>> ^Payback:

Seige Tanks and a Banshee? Better hope you're playing against a total noob Zerg.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Hey there space-boy.....Yer message falls on ears deaf to the frequency, Kenneth. Positive ads feed starving sea otters, this one is a frontal assault on worldwide consciousness. Threw up in my mouth

Thanks, Gundam. It helps to hear that sometimes!

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^draak13:
Why is this getting upvoted?
To condemn the entire religion is extremely juvenile; the majority of the people in this religion are not the extremists who are rioting in the streets.
Instead of condemning entire religions, it'd be much more accurate to condemn religious fundamentalism or extremism. The majority of muslim people condemn these violent actions.

You've been registered since 2007, so surely you must know that there exists a segment of Sifters who are hardened Islamophobes (though they hate being called that). You'll find lots of Condel's videos (and other anti-Islam videos as well) have been Sifted. I used to comment on them about the absurdity of condemning a religion (which, like Christianity, has numerous different sects and faction and is practiced by people with widely differing cultural and educational backgrounds, not to mention political motivations) based on the actions of some of its members but I mostly got shouted down as a "cultural apologist/relativist."
I will say that the frequency with which these types of videos get submitted and Sifted has decreased over the years, which seems to indicate that other Sifters got as sick of the rhetoric as I was.

If the frequencies are close, they still synchronize. So says crotchflame's link above.>> ^ReverendTed:

So I'm wondering what happens if they're set to different frequencies.

So I'm wondering what happens if they're set to different frequencies.

>> ^draak13:

Why is this getting upvoted?
To condemn the entire religion is extremely juvenile; the majority of the people in this religion are not the extremists who are rioting in the streets.
Instead of condemning entire religions, it'd be much more accurate to condemn religious fundamentalism or extremism. The majority of muslim people condemn these violent actions.


You've been registered since 2007, so surely you must know that there exists a segment of Sifters who are hardened Islamophobes (though they hate being called that). You'll find lots of Condel's videos (and other anti-Islam videos as well) have been Sifted. I used to comment on them about the absurdity of condemning a religion (which, like Christianity, has numerous different sects and faction and is practiced by people with widely differing cultural and educational backgrounds, not to mention political motivations) based on the actions of some of its members but I mostly got shouted down as a "cultural apologist/relativist."

I will say that the frequency with which these types of videos get submitted and Sifted has decreased over the years, which seems to indicate that other Sifters got as sick of the rhetoric as I was.