[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

I'll just say I must expect if you're so certain, you must put your money where your mouth is, and are looking seriously into buying as much beach front property in Vanuatu as possible. Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right? I have put my money where my mouth is, I have solar, I grow (most of) my own food, and I'm building a water catchment system.
Pay attention to what the scientists say, yes...but don't put too much stake in any single statement by any single group. Take the science as a whole, discard the crazed outliers, then examine and compare the remainder. After doing that, I always find that things are getting worse faster than nearly any study suggested it would, certainly more than the public 'consensus', in numerous ways that often re-enforce each other, and in ways that often were hidden under older study methods (such as the Greenland ice sheet, which is not only moving far faster than expected, but is also losing density much faster than expected, meaning older methods of measuring glaciers by size no longer apply...or the heating of the ocean where so much heat was 'hidden' in deep water, not found until recently so claimed to not exist, or the theory that certain diatoms might do better in acidic CO2 saturated water, but they found that that was wrong because in reality low light due to turbidity more than erased any positive effect.)

Today, one can find a 'study' to show anything one wishes, complete with scientists, data, conclusions, and affluent backers. The study you quote actually claimed that there will not be a loss of ice cover in Greenland and/or Antarctica, contrary to current conditions where there already IS loss of ice cover and it's accelerating exponentially. If you wish to believe that simply slowing the rate at which we increase the amount of CO2 we create by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous) I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida. The same goes for if you believe China and India are going to DECREASE their emissions. To date, they have done nothing but ignore their own additions to climate change as far as their energy production is concerned, they have not put extra money into 'clean' energy, but instead consistently go for the cheap, but dirty methods. There's no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 years as they ramp up their energy use to first world levels, that goes double if people are convinced (as you seem to be) that there's really no big problem with the climate, nothing to worry about, and any small inconvenience will be solved by technology and intelligent governments doing the right thing, even though it's the more expensive thing that they normally avoid like the plague. Unfortunately, history does not show that this is how people or governments operate.

>> ^Deano:


I think the smart answer from you would be to accept I'm not going to type hundreds of names out for you. That's not a real answer or proof. Your response is disingenuous.
We're going with our knowledge of what this demographic is. Note I've never said or claimed that footballers are universally "dumb". I said they aren't especially bright. I have said and will always maintain they certainly are not the smartest slice of the population. And by the way going back to the video, Mitchell is clearly taking the piss. It is a comedy program with exaggeration a key component.
"Thick people can't handle school"? I think there's a huge number of educationalists would argue that one. Provision levels and equality of opportunity along with socio-economic factors play a huge role. Footballers from poor working-class families more often find themselves excluded from progressing in the educational system and it's not always because they're "thick". In London I know the debate re the lack of educational achievement in boys linked to the decline in male teachers. You cross that with the race issue and it's even more complicated.
Ah now you're going with my definition of football intelligence? Well that's what I've been driving at. They're good at football. They know how hard to strike the ball, when to time a run, how to employ gamesmanship. They have good spatial awareness. You could now start to talk about different kinds of intelligence. But that's a bloody complicated area. I would however continue to separate football smarts from intellectual ones and general life skills.
You're right, having good advice on hand is advantageous. But some footballers are smarter than others. Tevez for example might be the dumbest, or unluckiest, guy in the game. Mostly the infrastructure is already in place for these guys. Word of mouth is important. I would love to know whether they would make more or less if they didn't employ representation. It would be interesting to know wouldn't it? I suspect it would take a huge amount of balls at a young age to do it yourself or entrust mum or dad.
I never intended to claim Klinnsman's diving was dumb, merely that I note it as a low light of his professional career. I saw him play once and he was excellent in what was really a workmanlike Spurs team.
I'll call it a draw with Barton. I don't know if you're calling me dumb but yes he is an unpleasant thug. He's a moron who's been unable to learn from his mistakes. Guess who's got the most yellow cards for QPR this season?


Of course you're not going to type out hundreds of names and that wouldn't be enough anyway - that's my point. I could name clever footballers - including ones who have a reputation for being dumb (Frank Lampard) - which would be pointless too. It's all anecdotal, it's basically meaningless.

I'm not sure what point you're making with regards to education, "it's not always because they're 'thick'" seems to be agreeing with me.

I didn't mean to say you're dumb, I was referring to Barton's thug past implying that he isn't a genius. Getting most yellow cards isn't necessarily bad, he's a tough tackling midfielder so it's his job to throw himself about (and getting a booking is clever if it stops a goal!). I took your comment about Klinsmann diving to mean he's stupid, sorry about that.

It's certainly complicated and the socio-economic and race issues you touched on only make it more so. In fairness, I don't know. You make good points and you aren't falling into the trap that bugs me, the idea that British footballers are barely capable of tying their shoe laces (or putting on their own bibs ... oh!). I expect they are above average, a bit, but you make good arguments for them being a bit below average.

This clip is from Mock the Week, there was a Franky Boyle bit about the England team writing their own song (this is the best I can find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpbvF1dESFY&feature=related ). I know this is exaggerated for comic effect but for me, people saying that or laughing at that are the thick ones. Comic exaggeration of an already at-best exaggerated opinion is brainless.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Deano:

How many names am I supposed to give you? Is there a specific number that should convince you? Put it like this ff you were mining the wisdom of crowds they'd be the last crowd you'd go with.
A lack of education, also known as ignorance and poor critical thinking is linked to lack of comprehension and the wider phenomenon of stupidity.
You're incorrect about intelligence being a differentiator on the field. The number characteristic coaches look for is attitude. Players with an intense competitive desire and a controllable amount of aggression WITH talent are the ones who make it.
Off the pitch, being able to make smart decisions about contracts, sponsorship is where you'd be right. Actually maybe that means Beckham is a genius and I'm totally wrong! Or maybe he's well advised.
I always admired Klinnsman in that regard. If you forgot the diving you might recall he sorted out his own contract and only hired a lawyer and an accountant. The value of an education there is that you actually eke out a bit more money over the long term.
As for Barton his propensity for violence suggests he's not the poster boy for the football intelligentsia. I know he's been working via twitter to build a different kind of reputation but I'm yet to be convinced. It's amazing what you can cut and paste on the web.

I'd like over 50% of footballers, that would convince me. It's all anecdotal otherwise. The last crowd I'd go for would certainly not be footballers, it would be unemployed, ex-convicts who left school early because it was too hard for them.
Again, while a lack of education is linked with stupidity, this is because the reason is often that thick people can't handle school. Leaving school for a lucrative career is very different.
The characteristic that coaches look for is being a good player and more intelligent people will generally be slightly better. You mentioned this yourself - footballing intelligence. That's not a separate part of the brain, that's good old intelligence, along with experience on the pitch. If you have 2 players with equally intense competitive desire, controllable aggression and talent, the smarter one is the one who will pick better passes, position themselves better, concentrate better, be a better player.
Klinsmann is far from the only player who did his own contracts but then that's not really relevant - having good advisers might be the intelligent choice; if they get you 30% more and take 15% then they're worth hiring. Also, frankly, diving is intelligent given how pathetically advantageous it is.
You can add being a thug to Barton's rap sheet and that is pretty dumb. Whether he's just copy and pasting from www.NietzscheForDummies.com we don't know but even if he was, this would require a greater understanding of the world than British footballers are given credit for.


I think the smart answer from you would be to accept I'm not going to type hundreds of names out for you. That's not a real answer or proof. Your response is disingenuous.
We're going with our knowledge of what this demographic is. Note I've never said or claimed that footballers are universally "dumb". I said they aren't especially bright. I have said and will always maintain they certainly are not the smartest slice of the population. And by the way going back to the video, Mitchell is clearly taking the piss. It *is* a comedy program with exaggeration a key component.

"Thick people can't handle school"? I think there's a huge number of educationalists would argue that one. Provision levels and equality of opportunity along with socio-economic factors play a huge role. Footballers from poor working-class families more often find themselves excluded from progressing in the educational system and it's not always because they're "thick". In London I know the debate re the lack of educational achievement in boys linked to the decline in male teachers. You cross that with the race issue and it's even more complicated.

Ah now you're going with my definition of football intelligence? Well that's what I've been driving at. They're good at football. They know how hard to strike the ball, when to time a run, how to employ gamesmanship. They have good spatial awareness. You could now start to talk about different kinds of intelligence. But that's a bloody complicated area. I would however continue to separate football smarts from intellectual ones and general life skills.

You're right, having good advice on hand is advantageous. But some footballers are smarter than others. Tevez for example might be the dumbest, or unluckiest, guy in the game. Mostly the infrastructure is already in place for these guys. Word of mouth is important. I would love to know whether they would make more or less if they didn't employ representation. It would be interesting to know wouldn't it? I suspect it would take a huge amount of balls at a young age to do it yourself or entrust mum or dad.

I never intended to claim Klinnsman's diving was dumb, merely that I note it as a low light of his professional career. I saw him play once and he was excellent in what was really a workmanlike Spurs team.

I'll call it a draw with Barton. I don't know if you're calling *me* dumb but yes he is an unpleasant thug. He's a moron who's been unable to learn from his mistakes. Guess who's got the most yellow cards for QPR this season?

Smells like bullshit from china to here.

Either it's just drivel or rest of chinese have uncommonly poor low-light vision and they think he's somehow special when he's just normal

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's more logical if you want them to be blind. The reason it is designed that way is because of UV light..water blocks it out, air doesn't..the blood vessels are in front to block out the UV light..otherwise you would be blind in a few days.
>> ^TheGenk:
Interesting, I always thought the cells were arranged like the cephalopods since it's more logical.
Got to keep that in mind when I create my army of genetically engineered superhumans to take over the world.



Since I'm an intelligent designer, I would just put a UV filter on the cornea, therefor solving this problem and increasing their ability to see in low light situations a little in one go.

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

Also made the video embed. The video is better than I would have done Spoco - especially in the low light. And a great music choice. Next year we fly in @youdiejoe for the full Hollywood treatment. Maybe I'll look less like John Belushi's fat brother.

Absolutely wonderful film. Lots of really interesting things about it: one in particular is that Stanley retrofitted special NASA developed cameras so that he could film night-scenes with nothing but natural light, which for the 1700s is candles, moon, and other very very low-light sources.

Some people think the movie is slow-moving, but you really have to watch it in the context of Kubrick's style as well as the fact that it was the 70s and movies could have more artsy "still life" montages than they do now.

But yeah, if you are a Kubrick fan, go watch it now!

>> ^rich_magnet:
I see no direct evidence of bioluminscence in this example. It's red indeed, and the scintillation effect is produced by light scattering of the combs, not bioluminscence. Perhaps if filmed in low light...


You missed an "e," it's bioluminescence. And yes, the Bloodbelly Comb Jelly is bioluminescent. That is all.

I belive you are wrong. I am sure without future investigation that this is a deep sea animal as I have just watched a deep sea floor documentary by attenburough and this was shown in it. down their there is no light and it makes it own USING BIO ILLUMINESence

In reply to this comment by rich_magnet:
I see no direct evidence of bioluminscence in this example. It's red indeed, and the scintillation effect is produced by light scattering of the combs, not bioluminscence. Perhaps if filmed in low light...

I see no direct evidence of bioluminscence in this example. It's red indeed, and the scintillation effect is produced by light scattering of the combs, not bioluminscence. Perhaps if filmed in low light...

>> ^blankfist:
That looks pretty damn impressive. What's the music from?


Music is The Breeders - Roi (Reprise)

Alrighty, new blog post above this one has the new lens and you can see what the right lens and settings can produce in low light.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I don't know what kind of budget you have or if you're even in the market for a good lens, but Sigma makes a GREAT 30mm f/1.4 lens.
I have one for my Cannon and it's just an awesome glass.
They're kinda spendy though, at about $450.


I picked up a Nikon equivalent lens today, and did a quick test with the correct settings for low light, lets just say it's the difference of night and day. I'll post the test vid later.

>> ^blankfist:
It's hard to tell looking at a small vimeo video, but the darks look deep in low light, which is really nice. Did you treat the contrast at all, or is this raw? If it's raw, that's pretty amazing. Have you tried the Casio EX-F1? It's supposed to be a pretty sweet camera that shoots 1200 fps.


raw, no color correction, nuthin'. You should click through to vimeo and look at some of the other examples, pretty fricken sweet.

I had the Samsung equivalent of the Casio for about 12 days before I returned it, not enough manual options.