@Fairbs I have good days and bad days with them... but the good days are when I am inside not looking at blue skies : ) Or snowy fields, that can be bad. I actually switch my videosift to black and for my job (as software developer) I switch my editors to black backgrounds also. This minimizes their appearance.

For telescopes and microscopes , I use binoviewers which dramatically reduce the perception of floaters as two eyes are averaged out.

Don't understand why you are asking that question? The video is the answer, and it's summarised for you in the description. The answer is that they were handed a piece of paper that did not have any current (at the time) American law on it - but were misled by someone into thinking that it was. I hope that's clear enough and i've highlighted it so you can see it easily.

Are you trying to make a point, or did you not get that from the seventeen different ways it was said in the video and description?

Additionally to that point, i strongly suspect that in the professional legal industry, mistakes like that simply do not happen by accident. They are at the very top some of the most important legal decisions being made in the entire world, and i'm supposed to believe that they accidentally overlooked something that had been decided over 30 years ago and entirely changed police policy? Whoops i just printed off a 30 year old law, and i thought it was the present day one? Do you think the members of the jury didn't think, "Hmmm, are you sure it's legal to shoot random people as long as they're running away? We don't see that very often anymore.... Odd!" And when they ask that they're told, "Well there's the law right there for ya, i'm as surprised as you but i won't double check the modernity of it!" Only to be told days before the decision that perhaps maybe parts of the second bit of the bit i gave you earlier might not be valid, but we don't want to get into technicalities here, don't worry about it.

It's fucking corrupt, someone's (more likely to be many people) pulled a fast one... but worse still, someone's pulled a fast one on a HUGELY important case and had the arrogance to think they'd get away with something that simple. When you think of the protests in Ferguson and many many people showing support, how could they be so flippant? It doesn't just point towards racism, it confirms every racist suspicion that you might have had about the American legal system. It's not a one-off when it happens at the very top of the pyramid, that's how the best of the legal eagles in America deals with the problem of a white policeman killing a black man.... it was his fault, he's bad, he deserved it.

They were right under the microscope here - are you racist? And what did they do? Surely this is evidence of a system that lets down black people, and therefore it urgently needs to be fixed... and what about past offenders? I'd be pretty angry, if i were a black American. It's not just a let down, it's a dupe.

Mine are like this in both eyes:
http://www.barransclass.com/phys1090/circus/Gillespie_B/EyeFloaters2.jpg

I got them all 15 years ago when an insanely powerful flash discharged right in front of my eyes. (INSTANT pain ON) Over the next few days my eyes filled with them.

When I look at highly collimated light (like a powerful view in a microscope or telescope) I can see ALLLLL of them swimming in 3D.

A bright sunny day blue sky is like looking through egg whites.

Hi Poolcleaner,

I think you're arguing from a false premise, that a belief in Creation science does not contribute to what you call true science. Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists. Here is a list of a few of them:

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

Their belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws (which is the reason we call them laws) highly influenced and inspired their exploration of the cosmos. Here are a couple of quotes:

When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!

-Robert Boyle, Chemistry

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

-Louis Pasteur, Medicine

Creation science is a collection of data which supports the idea that the Earth is young. Some of the theories within creation science are testable and predictive, but as a whole you cannot put it in a lab and perform a measurement any more than you could do so for macroevolution, because they both concern what happened in the past. You cannot observe macroevolution happening anywhere nor can you subject it to empirical testing. You can make observations and inferences based on a theory, but that is subject to interpretation.

Sam makes a great point about the failure of journalism, and I love that he calls out Cenk on the issue at the start. Call it whining if you like, but he's so spot on with his criticism that it alone makes the viewing worthwhile in my opinion.

All Sam is really asking for (not the profiling part) is to acknowledge that it matters what people believe. I'm amazed that this is somehow hard for people to swallow. I think most people would agree with him, fundamentally on this point.

Having accepted the above point (that people are motivated, at least in part, by their beliefs), one of the next things to do is to identify some of humanity's worst ideas, and try to undermine them. It so happens that the horrible ideas Sam is tackling, in general, are in the holy books of the 3 big monotheisms. Since 2 of those 3 have already internally dealt with the most horrendous of their ideas, it leaves the latecomer, Islam, to fall under the microscope. It doesn't help that islam, at it's foundation, attempted to bake in a proof against future refinement and growth.

This seems almost as uncontroversial as a logical chain of thoughts could be, yet somehow people manage to misunderstand them.

The Gist:

Guy in business suit looking thoughtfully out of window.
(Doubtful anyone who designs fine consumer goods, *actually designs consumer goods*, wears a suit). Maybe its supposed to be you! You avant-garde millionaire, you!

Person sketching watch designs. This is probably semi-close to reality, though they don’t show the hundreds of designs the visual designer creates that are dismissed at whim by the aforementioned, assumed (but inevitable even if not shown) suits.

People fiddling with plastic representations of what one would assume as the model for said watch design. Maybe realistic, though with the caveat that two people are sitting there going over said physical design, in any serious discussion concerning the actual physics of the end product. I can *not* imagine that nearly the entirety of this process today, both visual and mechanical design, are not done digitally.

Okay, there’s some CG. Because CG is the next step, rather than the first, least expensive step in any design process today. Who wants to quickly model everything in a matter of hours when you can fabricate expensive, physical material for iterative testing?

Holy shit, was that guy just looking at a wood cutout? I can’t even think of a shitty, sarcastic/realistic remark about that one. I might have misunderstood that shot.

Alright, now we’re machining shit. You can’t really fake that with a few grand for marketing. That’s the real stuff. (1.5m in)

No, they don’t sand/polish things by hand during the fabrication phase. That’s entirely too inaccurate and subjective to the assembler to leave up to human hands. (But hey: it’s a 2.5 million dollar piece of metal, so lets make those buyers feel good about their money spent).

Oh look: gemstones! (???) That's kingly.

More faux machining that is veritably inferior to quality mechanical assembly.

Oh shit, someone just turned a nob!

3.5 minutes in, and we see some actual hand-polished work that is legitimately viable to perform by hand.

Hey lets sand those nodules off the finished pieces, and micro-inspect those printed markings, because nothing about us says “accuracy” without a fallible human to do it. Also: what are they printing shit on there for? Was it pushing the price to $3mil to engrave the timestamps on the faces? That better be the highest quality electroplated coating, but even then I can't imagine that's superior than a tactile, physical representation.

Now they’re hand-engraving the sculpted ornamentation, but it’s one more point I can gladly give them because those kinds of human touches let you know at least some sort of artisan was involved. I can appreciate that, though realizing what I just said causes me to reflect on the inaccuracies of mass-production, and why we would take one over the other…

More microscopes. (Because if one notch is off, it’s back to the furnace for you!)

Awe shit, payday. A guy in a suit looking confident is walking towards your building!

Finally, the gear assembly. It certainly looks fantastic, photographically speaking. I can’t help but notice that all that detail is lost to hundreds of textural indentations or are due to stylized alternating polish/grinding. However, I’m confident that spending $2.5mil on this product would get me the absolute, most accurate, unnoticeable details (hand-made!) within a micro-millimeter of accuracy. Those indentations are like chrome on a street-racer in the 90’s: the more you have, the greater they perform.

@~8min, I’m pretty sure no one works like that at their desk. That posture would kill you in a month.

They know you can’t spin the head of a watch while it’s on your wrist, right?

Awe! It’s got 5 ringtones! That’s way more than any other watch I’ve even heard of! Except everything that doesn’t cost $2.5mil.


If I can take anything away from this that’s even remotely positive, it’s that at least millionaire shitheads are now being just as suckered as the rest of the consumer base. Let me sell ONE of those watches, and I would have enough money to overtake their business within a year, except for that I don't have the greed, dishonesty, and overall lack of morals that it would take to set up a quality factory, and trick such dickheads into buying (even superior BS) products.

"Allowing" opinions like Lantern's makes it possible to begin to understand the "wrong" side of the argument.

SB is just a deluded, self-aggrandizing zealot. He has no qualms attacking sifters without provocation, based only on his microscopically narrow, scientifically impossible world view.

...but, I haven't seen evidence of him in months, so I'm hoping the question is moot anyway.

Your video, Jellyfish Stinging in Microscopic SlowMo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What's interesting about Al Sharpton is rarely have I seen anyone come under such scrutiny throughout their entire life. All their choices places under a microscope as they navigate the already perilous political landscape of Activism. The wild speculation and misinterpretation would be enough to crush most men.

His life is what I could see happening to Martin Luther King Jr. if he lived. MLK was about to make a speech and start a campaign against specifically poverty and inequality before he died. It was going to be his next project and one that had a lot of support among blacks and the lower class. It was already starting to happen that mainstream state supporting media was turning against him. It's the idea of "Ok we agreed with you on this but now you've been radicalized." The idea that radicalization is when you try and do something we can't possibly support, like fair wages or money out of politics.

Not trying to say that MLK and Al Sharpton are equals, but if MLK had lived I'm certain that his Wikipedia page would be, along with Sharptons, an essay on every misspoken word, every misguided action. Everything placed under a microscope which not even the most pious and dedicated man could escape. It would be a farce, and that's how you destroy an opponent, any opponent. This is why our politicians are all pieces of cardboard that suck.

Most of those things, while cool, look like something they'd find under a microscope and have you take pills to kill it.

Did he mention the spherical lens? I thought that was one of the more interesting features - http://www.geek.com/science/foldscope-is-a-50-cent-paper-microscope-that-magnifies-up-to-2000-times-1587443/

Totally incorrect. Check out the work of Dr. Gary Greenberg for some real knowledge on sand. He takes microscopic photographs of sand from all over the world.

http://videosift.com/video/A-Grain-of-Sand-By-Dr-Gary-Greenberg

I want that microscope !!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Microscopic-Video-of-Tick-Mouthparts-Biting-a-Mouse

Microscopic Video of Tick Mouthparts Biting a Mouse has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.