Tags for this video have been changed from 'tone, matrix, music, compose, repeat, mouse, click, andre michelle' to 'tone, matrix, music, compose, repeat, mouse, click, andre michelle, grid' - edited by messenger

What I'd really like to see is the same experiment, but with grid lines drawn on the bottles. I predict we'd see the "expanding jig" effect at the top.>> ^Boise_Lib:

My hypothesis is easily falsifiable. If the top half of a bottle had an expandable jig placed into it and the outer circumference of the top 1/3 of the bottle was stressed outward would the top portion be pulled down?
If you want to communicate with Destin be my guest--but I want credit when they hand out the Nobel.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Lucky didn't mention it, but this was an email submission from the producer - here's some more detail:

I wanted to share a cool sci-fi, VFX heavy film I produced called Plurality. The film was conceived by Ryan Condal (screenwriter for Paradise Lost, Hercules, Cell 211) and directed by Dennis Liu of @radical.media. We shot it for no money, with a couple friends over a year and a half.

It takes place in 2023 NYC, where the WTC1/Freedom Tower houses THE GRID, a city-wide system that tracks all of your movements to reduce crime. The film confronts the issues of privacy and surveillance for the sake of safety.

Plurality Movie Link:
http://youtu.be/IzryBRPwsog

Boner: It is still confusing...

Astrophysicists have created the most realistic computer simulation of the universe's evolution to date, tracking activity from the Big Bang to now -- a time span of around 14 billion years -- in high resolution.

Created by a team at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics (CfA) in collaboration with researchers at the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies (HITS), the Arepo software provides detailed imagery of different galaxies in the local universe using a technique known as "moving mesh".

Unlike previous model simulators, such as the Gadget code, Arepo's hydrodynamic model replicates the gaseous formations following the Big Bang by using a virtual, flexible grid that has the capacity to move to match the motions of the gas, stars, dark matter and dark energy that make up space -- it's like a virtual model of the cosmic web, able to bend and flex to support the matter and celestial bodies that make up the universe. Old simulators instead used a more regimented, fixed, cubic grid.

"We took all the advantages of previous codes and removed the disadvantages," explained Volker Springel, the HITS astrophysicist who built the software. Springel, an expert in galaxy formation who helped build the Millennium Simulation to trace the evolution of 10 billion particles, used Harvard's Odyssey supercomputer to run the simulation. Its 1,024 processor cores allowed the team to compress 14 billion years worth of cosmic history in the space of a few months.

The results are spiral galaxies like the Milky Way and Andromeda that actually look like spiral galaxies -- not the blurred blobs depicted by previous simulators -- generated from data input that stretches as far back as the afterglow of the Big Bang, thus portraying a dramatic cosmic evolution (see the above video for a sneak peek of that evolution from four billion years after the Big Bang).

"We find that Arepo leads to significantly higher star formation rates for galaxies in massive haloes and to more extended gaseous disks in galaxies, which also feature a thinner and smoother morphology than their Gadget counterparts," the team states in a paper describing the technology.

Though the feat is impressive -- CfA astrophysicist Debora Sijacki compares the high-resolution simulation's improvement over previous models to that of the 24.5-metre aperture Giant Magellan Telescope's improvement over all telescopes -- the team aim to generate simulations of larger areas of the universe. If this is achieved, the team will have created not only the most realistic, but the biggest universe simulation ever.



>> ^BoneRemake:

this video is a waste without addition information.
what am I looking at. spiraling gas' or something.
what is the significance, why did nine people upvote something they probably do not understand.
what part of the universe is this ? why didnt it start at the beginning ?
WHY WHY FUCKING WHY.

>> ^harlequinn:

>> ^raverman:
"It's like playing a musical instrument, except if you get the chords wrong the crowd will think less of your skills as a musician.">> ^PancakeMaster:
It's like a musical game of memory, except if you forget a block live a few hundred youngsters will boo you.


There are no chords to get wrong. The chord is programmed into one button.
This is an 8 x 8 grid of binary switches. Pressing a button activates a sample.
Compare to a piano with 88 keys, each key has variable volume depending on how hard you press it. Plus three pedals (soft, sustain, and sostenuto). You actually have to play the melody and accompanying chords.
I wouldn't call him a musician. Just like I don't call DJs musicians.


If he had made this soundtrack without using the launchpad, using DAW software and various plugins and samples, that somehow is more "musician"y than using a 64 key launchpad with samples that he probably prepared himself, even though the end result is the same? Maybe composers aren't musicians? Or are you saying this isn't music?

And, you must not think a person playing a small organ is a musician, since it has fewer keys than a piano, and each key is a binary switch that turns on and off the sound of the pipe.

>> ^raverman:

"It's like playing a musical instrument, except if you get the chords wrong the crowd will think less of your skills as a musician.">> ^PancakeMaster:
It's like a musical game of memory, except if you forget a block live a few hundred youngsters will boo you.



There are no chords to get wrong. The chord is programmed into one button.

This is an 8 x 8 grid of binary switches. Pressing a button activates a sample.

Compare to a piano with 88 keys, each key has variable volume depending on how hard you press it. Plus three pedals (soft, sustain, and sostenuto). You actually have to play the melody and accompanying chords.

I wouldn't call him a musician. Just like I don't call DJs musicians.

First, the sex thing is biblical based. It's part of the GOD package. you either buy into it or you don't. Republicans seem to buy into this more than Democrats.


As a parent of little ones I personally wish like .com, org, .gov, .net there was a .porn in which you could select and filter out sites by extension. I believe the internet community just passed such rules. The next step would to make sure porn sites use the .porn extension. The choice still would be the user. One could argue that the government should not dictate this but since these new .com extension will come in affect, browsers will inherently make this filter option possible.

So the issue would become "forcing" porn sites to re list their sites to the new .porn extension. Only governments could pass laws and fines that could "force" the hand of porn sites. As much as I would like this to occur I don't believe government should.


Only when you have kids do you see things differently. You really notice how inappropriate TV shows and commercials are.

One could argue that the lack of civility in society is from lack of morality. The TV is full of inappropriate situations. One could argue that TV is the real teacher of of society morals.

I am all for not letting little ones grow up too quickly. But unless you live off the grid they will be influenced more from TV, Web, and social media. Parents are out gunned by the media empire.

So your question for an response is hard. I feel Government should not interfere with business.

Business on the other hand should conduct themselves in a morally positive fashion.
Adult TV themed shows should be aired late at night after little ones should be in bed.

Porn sites should adopt the .porn extension and browsers should have user selectable filters.

Parents also should involve themselves and promote morally positive themes from media by emailing, calling etc tv\ cable providers and you local government representatives.

We are all in this together. We either all morally rise or fall together.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I love how republicans hate big government intrusion into peoples lives... right up until sex is involved. Now, tell me @bobknight33, @quantumushroom, @Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @lantern53 and
@Chaucer do you really want a piece of government installed software on your computer that monitors your web activity?
Can't wait to see this....

@bmacs27 Cell phones don't launch you to a higher standard of living more than a fully integrated energy system. Refrigeration, transportation, fertilizer, steel production, manufacturing, iron ore reprocessing, food production, water purification, medicine distribution/production/manufacture ect. These things require TONS of energy, something a cellphone charger stove is not. A phone charging stove, IMO, will confer very little improvement to the standard of living to the their world. "Worthwhile" is a pretty arbitrary idea, though, so there isn't a "right" answer per say. But I would wager greater quality of life would be had if you used all the money from these stove thingies into an energy infrastructure; having access to clean water and a electrical grid might be better than a marginally cleaner stove.

Particulate matter is usually the risk associated with burning coals and woods from coal and wood ash. Greenhouse isn't the issue (the CO2 in plants will go back into the air via decomposition), it is the junk that goes into your lungs. Less is good, but electric stoves (or gas) would be better as you can move the source of smoke to some distant place. I don't know the economics of small village towns, so perhaps this has a place as a stopgap until there is serious economic development, but it isn't a very big step...so I am trying some googlefu to see how much they plan to spend over there on these. If it is like 10k bucks or something, then ya, those 200 people or so you help is niceish, if they plan to spend millions, or they are charging them instead of handing them out, then other developments would be far better. As someone who has burned wood to heat a house as the primary source, it isn't fun, even if it was 50% better, using money to buy a better stove would of been silly compared to just using gas or electric provided there was an system for doing so. I think money would be better spent developing those systems instead of vesting money in a dead end technology (burning wood). One might liken it to fixing up that old car that keeps breaking down, it is a money trap...best to go get a better car if you could.

Even so, I think I might get one in the future for camping. Could be fun to mess with the TEG and main container to perhaps tweak some higher power levels out of it!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Wood fiber has about the same energy density as carbs, so it is essentially cooking a hamburger for your electronics <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">

Burning wood isn't exactly "Green" though, so this is a clever marketing angle that is mostly untrue.

Edit, did some googling, and found their electrical output is about 2Watts (not enough to power most light bulbs), and they cost about 130 bucks. Those kind of cost to power ratios are WAAAAAAAAY out of touch of the needs of third world counties, you need kilowatts before you have any real needs met. If you ran this 24/7 for a year, the annual cost of electricity...not including the burning material is 7.42 dollars per KWH. The average cost of electricity in the US is about 10 cents per KWH, marking this as a third world solution is pretty shitty.


Actually, they have a bigger HomeStove as well, and neither it nor the CampStove are really meant to have a primary purpose of generating electricity - the main purpose is to cook things, and the surplus electricity is a nice side effect. According to this page: http://www.biolitestove.com/homestove/homestove-technology/ , the reason this is better than a regular fire or older rocket stove is fewer CO emissions (eco-friendly) and less smoke (health hazard) for cooking the same meals.

In India, there are tons of people with mobile phones, but the power grid is not reliable and there are frequent rolling blackouts. Of course, people could just wait for power to come back to charge their phone, but if you are cooking at the time, why not use the stove?

I think the high price of the CampStove is meant to help lower the price of the HomeStove for these other markets.

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

The difference between chance and design is the most important distinction there is. If you don't like the word chance, I will use the word "unplanned", or "mindless". An unplanned Universe has no actual purpose; it is just happenstance. Meaning, your life is just a product of mindless processes, and concepts like morality, justice, and truth have no essential meaning. It means you are just some blip on a grid and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It also means you will never find out what happened or why it happened because no one knows what is going on or ever will. This will *always* lead you to nihilism.

A designed Universe, on the other hand, does have a purpose. A purposeful Universe means that life was created for a reason. It means that there is a truth, a truth that only the Creator knows. Which means that all lines of inquiry will lead to the Creators doorstep, and that trying to understand the Universe without the Creator is completely futile. It is like looking at a painting with three marks on it..you could endlessly speculate on what the painter was thinking when he painted it. However, no matter how clever you were, you don't have enough information to be sure about anything. To refuse to seek the Creator would be to stare at that painting your whole life trying to figure it out when you have the painters business card with his phone number on it in your pocket.

I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

The whole thing is arbitrary to begin with. Naturalistic explanations are assumed apriori, and then the evidence is interpreted through the conclusion. That isn't how science works. You come to the conclusion because of the evidence, not the other way around. I would also note that you would never accept this kind of reasoning from a creationist. Neither does a mountain of circumstantial evidence prove anything.

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

Anything sounds plausible, apparently, when you have billions of years to play with. As the earlier quote said, time itself performs the miracles for you. How do you know that the mechanism hasn't already been identified but you have rejected it?

http://creation.com/devils-tower-explained

No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.

I have to say that this idea of a bunch of hokey. The Christians I know believe in God because they have a personal relationship with Him. It has nothing to do with making a choice..God chose us. He would chose you too, if you were open to Him.

Neither was I afraid of death when I was an agnostic, and I wasn't afraid of saying I don't know (that's why I was an agnostic, because I didn't know). I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me, and that is the only reason. If He hadn't, I would still be an agnostic.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God. We can see that whomever made the Universe is unimaginably powerful, intelligent, exists outside of space and time, etc. Scientology isn't credible and explains nothing. God can explain everything.

Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Most of the new translations butcher the scriptures. They remove entire verses, words, water down meanings, or just flat out mislead. I can't stand them either. The KJV is the best word for word translation that we have, and although the language is archaic, it is comprehensible with a little research.

>> ^jmzero

>> ^nach0s:

1) So when the grid goes out, lift short-circuits and planes drop straight out of the sky?
2) You car's battery maintains its charge via the alternator. The Prius (being picked clean by some unreasonbly attractive looking woman) charges itself (i.e. it doesn't plug-in) via friction (google it). Unless it's some EMP event, at least some cars will run.
2) For a semi-post apoc environment, the denizens look incredibly tailored and freshly primped.


Seems the idea is more like an EMP on some crazy-go-nuts scale. Even that wouldn't explain why new electronics can't be made, but, you know, it's sci-fi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#E1

And. . . yeah you might think the clothing and makeup industries would suffer from the end of civilization, but we have our priorities.

1) So when the grid goes out, lift short-circuits and planes drop straight out of the sky?
2) You car's battery maintains its charge via the alternator. The Prius (being picked clean by some unreasonbly attractive looking woman) charges itself (i.e. it doesn't plug-in) via friction (google it). Unless it's some EMP event, at least some cars will run.
2) For a semi-post apoc environment, the denizens look incredibly tailored and freshly primped.

When she starts saying gays transform, I thought we were going further off the grid. Slightly disappointed she was referring to them 'transforming' into heteros. I was hoping for dragons.

This one ?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.
But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."
I guess that's why the video empathized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties
Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cete
ra/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/


>> ^newtboy:

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?