I thought Indy 4 was almost there....
a) The two best Indy movies (1 & 3) had their roots in Biblical myths, this made them feel sort of 'legit', a nice sort of 'what if' these stories were true. Temple of Doom lacked this with him not searching for anything really, just stumbling across the Thuggees. The crystal skulls could have been a pretty good myth to work with, but there wasn't enough decoding scripture or writings or anything really to _do_ with the myth... I think that's where the two weak films initially fail, they aren't a good 'search for a lost item' story.

b) Far too much CGI, the chase through the jungle, while having some nice action and set pieces, just feels like a cgi scene, doesn't feel based in reality.

c) Too much lame humour. It's where Lucas failed a lot with the Star Wars prequels too... resorting to fart jokes and bad slapstick when the originals had a semblance of subtlety to them.

d) The end... just... a spaceship... really? The first one, we have ghosts... that's good, honest, old school movies. The second has some heart ripping and glowing stones, the third has life giving/sapping cups... but none of them have alien creatures coming to life and a space ship taking off... just doesn't work. That really should have been played down a lot, lot more. Some sort of alien power source that activated and made a whole lot of ancient machinery come to life would have been more in keeping.

I really enjoyed the motorcycle chase, I like Shia, I think he does well with whatever he's given. I think Harrison is still excellent in the role, there were some great action pieces. It's just really annoying to see a film get so close... so close and miss out due to what feels like just not having one more person look over the script and say 'Hey guys... you're kinda missing a few key "Indy" things here... and a few of these scenes are really very hokey'

But yeah, not as bad as some would make it out to be.

Yeah......something like that. Use chains to pull the supports out from a distance or push it over with something that can reach at least halfway up it's height. Better yet is a combination of both, pull the structure's supports out while pushing it in the direction the supports are gone. And throw some chains up high on it to help topple it.

They topple trees near houses by cutting a big wedge out to make it fall away from the house, cut the rest of the tree off and maintain pressure on the tree so it can't fall the other way if a big gust comes along or the tree is rotten or just some sort of freak thing where the tree tries to go wrong way. If possible they will usually cut the top off the tree off so it's easier to handle, but sometimes you can't do that when trees are unstable...like hit by lightning or broken due to storms.

And getting out of the machinery. Those things have roll cages on them that are supposed to support the weight of the vehicle if they roll over onto their side and then some. Not sure how it'd handle being punctured by rebar or narrow shafts of concrete, but it'd at least stand up to crushing better than your body.

Theoretically yes, but the efficiency would be terrible with current tech.

If only relying on radiative cooling then the condenser would need to be huge just to cool something the size of a house. Of course, the hotter the coils, the more heat transfer there would be.

Then the radiation would need to be transmitted through the atmosphere. That would heat some of the air along the way, reducing the efficiency of the transfer and further increasing the amount of cooling needed to offset global warming (clouds wouldn't help either).

There's also the fact that the entire process consumes a lot of power to compress the coolant. Currently much of that power comes from sources that emit greenhouse gasses, reducing the net efficiency of the cooling offset. The machinery itself also creates heat, which would need to be offset with additional cooling.

I don't think her idea was "stupid"... she just doesn't understand the difficulties and cost involved. If we had unlimited solar power and extremely efficient large-scale AC farms then it might work, but there's also the unknown side effects of localized cooling on wildlife and the hydrological cycle.

It's a neat idea, and I'd love to run the numbers on it sometime for fun, but it's currently impractical and possibly counter-productive with our current capabilities.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Ordinary air conditioners could only increase global mean temperature due to the law of conservation of energy. But if the condenser coils are in a vacuum surrounded by glass on top and a mirror on the bottom, then they just radiate into space.

Good dose of athletic fail and plenty of people who should not be allowed near motorized machinery. Wish the police catching the race off wasn't so short. The semi taking out the 3 cars (sadly it was the 3rd car on the bottom's fault0 was a fresh one.

I watch science videos all the time. Far from being ignorant of science, I was going to make it my career..it didn't turn out that way, but I would say I know more about science in general and astronomy in specific than the average bear. Thank you for watching it with an open mind..I found it fascinating simply of the basis of the illustration of molecular machinery. I agree with the irreducible complexity not on the basis that things like this couldn't necessarily evolve..but simply on the information content of something like DNA..which could not have evolved on its own. Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them. Science just doesn't have any good theories on these things..nature is not matching up to darwinian evolution. And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

>> ^Skeeve:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry There are more than 1.1 million biological and geological scientists in the US. You posted a video from one of the approximately 150 American biologists who are creationists.
Please (and this is a serious and humble request with all the fervor a Christian might have when trying to save someone from hell), please watch, with an open mind, one of the thousands of videos from biologists who aren't trying to convert people.
This atheist watched your video with an open mind and found it lacking. It's time for you to open yours.

If the Universe is random, and not deliberately created, it has no purpose. Purpose requires intention. Because it has no purpose, it has no inherent meaning because it was not endowed with any by a Creator. It is simply the result of whatever process created it, a chain of events in which life came about by pure happenstance, the same events which may completely annihiliate it in the future, never to be again, again by happenstance. Which means that meaning itself is an arbitrary value that is based on your subjective interpertation, and only ever could be, because it has no objective basis in reality. You derive meaning from your limited experience and senses, filtered as it is through the biochemical machinery and assembled in your consciousness. You are the sole possessor of this meaning, and the sole arbitor of it, of which no one else will be able to personally apprehend, but only superficially relate to, and this in itself could disappear at any time at the moment of your death, again by happenstance. OR..

The Universe was created and designed for life by a moral Creator and lawgiver, who knows and loves you personally. That meaning is derived from relationship with God, who has a plan for you and your life, so that you may reach your fullest potential which is to enjoy eternal life with Him in paradise.

It's not like either is more likely than the other on the scale of odds..you could say everything is equally unlikely..you just have to ask yourself..was the Universe designed or wasn't it? I can look at this Universe and see Gods handwriting, but that's because I perceive it spiritually. You are unaware you even have one (a spirit). So to you it may seem like pascals wager..but..I will tell you what Jesus said: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" Which do you think is a better match to what is within?


>> ^Ryjkyj:
Evolution is not a judge. You are using your own values to judge whose useless or not, and you're putting them under the guise of your understanding of science. There's not a guy called Evolution sitting on a throne saying, "that person is functionally worthless."
Back to your comment that started this, about the universe having no intrinsic meaning if there's no god. You don't know that. You're making an assumption that it doesn't just like you're assuming that you can tell who's worthless or not.
Just because (hypothetically) there's no god, doesn't mean that the universe has no meaning, or that a person lying still in a bed is worthless.

I just love photography/video of abandoned buildings/locations. I find it fascinating to see how things are just left, what's left behind, how things age... try to make stories from things left behind.

Love them

Plus, ones like this are especially fascinating for all the work that went into building the place, all the rides, the wild west town, the machinery... and then it's all just left.

It's the leaving it and not reclaiming the land or buildings that, I think, fascinates me. Why is it just left, how is the land not valuable to anyone.

So many questions.

Some great sites if you like this:
http://www.abandoned-places.com/
http://www.opacity.us/

>> ^Payback:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rychan" title="member since June 20th, 2007" class="profilelink">rychan
I wasn't trying to compare the crimes but rather the enforcement mechanisms -- the idea that because a reasonable person wouldn't do it, we don't need law enforcement of it. That's clearly not a compelling argument.
Child abuse is obviously terrible. So is heroin use, though. It kills 100,000 people every year...
The point I was trying to make is, he wasn't saying there should be no laws. He even mentioned that even the 1st amendment has rules, that you can't injure or defame others. He believes that your personal choices should be your own.
If someone injures another, like your child abuse analogy, then he believes there SHOULD be consequences and laws. If your heroin junkie breaks into someone's home to steal money, then he should go to jail for burglary, not being an addict. If he holds a knife to your kid's throat to get their lunch money, he should be jailed for assault with deadly weapon, not because he has a used needle in his back pocket.


How is polling the audience supporting that argument? He was making two arguments (at least), one of which was the "reasonable person" argument which I think is baloney. You could apply the same argument to a horrible crime like child abuse.

His _other_ argument which you highlight -- the right to personal freedom -- is much more persuasive. I agree it is THE fundamental argument on this topic, and nobody should believe that it's a slam dunk argument either way.

I think entr0py's argument is compelling. Drugs like heroin are an overly tempting way to ruin your life. It's not a matter of intelligence or education -- one of the most interesting anti-smoking studies found that teenagers actually OVERestimate the danger of smoking. But they still do it, anyway. Virtually everyone who smokes started as a teenager. People simply do stupid things which are against their self interests and society's interest. So I don't want to see heroin regulated the way cigarettes are. That's not sufficient. Anyway, this is the "should government protect you from yourself" argument which some people find repugnant. I take it you are one of them. You don't care if 15% of every high school class dies from heroin abuse because on their 18th birthday they get access to plentiful, cheap heroin. I'm not saying that would be the case, I'm just saying that a strict believer in personal freedom would be fine with this.

Also I think we should worry about preventing crime, not punishing it. Yes, we could offer a young mother lots of heroin and wait until her child neglect becomes actionable by the state, but why let a family be ruined? You're right, her actions would snowball to the point of being illegal without making the drug itself illegal. That doesn't really reassure me much.

Maybe such problems wouldn't be widespread if all drugs were legalized. But they're already fairly common, and I don't see how legalizing everything would make them rarer.

Are you really OK with living next door to a house full of heroin addicts? having them offer your children heroin? Watching them spiral in to filth while they lose self control? Seeing their children show up at the bus stop unwashed and starving? And having the police tell you "Well, they haven't done anything illegal yet. Clearly this situation will crash and burn shortly, but we should definitely stand at the sidelines and watch. We wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms". Or maybe child services is more on the ball and the children end up in state custody sooner rather than later, so it's a happy ending? So maybe children and parents aren't allowed to use these drugs but other people can? And maybe nobody who operates heavy machinery? And certainly not schoolteachers.

It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by LarsaruS:
*quality message... stay safe out there.

The TV show was mostly based on her earliest days in comic books. Indeed, she originally didn't have the power of flight, but the writers gave it to her in 1960 - over 50 years ago now. They boosted her other powers slowly over time, just like they did with Superman (who now can approach the speed of light, but back in the beginning he was happy just to outrace bullets). Even when the TV show debuted her power of flight had been in existence for 15 years, but I think they chose to ignore it mainly because realistic human flight FX were too costly for most TV budgets back then.

I really believe they never tried to make a serious show. It was the '70s, and jiggling curves had finally become acceptable for American television. This is what they exploited. And to make a crappy, campy show like that last 4 years is a testament to how much one woman's bouncing boobs were cherished by male Americans of the time. Now it takes multiple sets of titties to make it these days. We've made great strides, haven't we? >> ^NetRunner:

@kronosposeidon I only really know her from the 70's show, and I admittedly mostly watched it for the, uhh, woodrows.
Sounds like in the comics she had a lot more power than her softcore TV version did. I don't recall her lifting anything much heavier than a car there, and she wasn't inhumanly fast, nor capable of flying without machinery.
I suppose she was a genius there too, but that only really manifested itself in her being able to occasionally answer trivia questions, not in the sense that Wonder Woman got presented as being uncannily intelligent in her actions or speech...

@kronosposeidon I only really know her from the 70's show, and I admittedly mostly watched it for the, uhh, woodrows.

Sounds like in the comics she had a lot more power than her softcore TV version did. I don't recall her lifting anything much heavier than a car there, and she wasn't inhumanly fast, nor capable of flying without machinery.

I suppose she was a genius there too, but that only really manifested itself in her being able to occasionally answer trivia questions, not in the sense that Wonder Woman got presented as being uncannily intelligent in her actions or speech...

Not to mention the chains can break and the guy is sitting in an unprotected cab, or something on the wheel itself could snap.

Or the damage it could do the machine if it didn't come free at some point...something has to give somewhere.

Either that ground was sloppy muddy when they drove into it, or they spun their wheels until they got stuck so bad they had to do this. Better off to stop and get some other kind of machine/truck or winch system to pull you.

This is one of those things you learn when you work in dirt......if the ground is suspect, walk it before you drive through it. If it won't hold you, it's not going to hold the machine. And don't park machines where you can't get to them with other machinery to pull them free if the ground turns to mush under them during the night or after a storm...if there's no stable looking parking options.

No, his boss and the owner of the hugely expensive wind machines would have torn him limb from limb for being such an asshole with their machinery.

Dead. That kind of real dead. Or maybe just crushed ball sac and therefore no functioning sperm and STILL there shall be no propagating.


>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
eia
Because if this had been a fail, he would have been DEAD. Removed from the gene pool.

Yes, if he were 3 inches tall and riding inside of the remote control plane...

Upvote for the music alone, although i had no clue making a ski-jump involved so much heavy machinery. I would have thought it was nothing but well.. snow.

Also, isnt't it pretty much insane that those two watery orbs in the front of our skull, plus the grey goo inside the skull, can decode photons into colors and eventually into a coherent threedimensional view of the world.

Nature has created some awesome bits of organic machinery.