Global warming is real; and it's coming--liberal or conservative, North, South--increasing oscillations in weather, increasingly violent oscillations--are gonna be a thing.

But... but... Republicans will say they look ugly under the ocean! Just like Trump said Wind mills are eyesores!

Back to the science of it. I wonder how much energy these oscillating plates can generate Wh? Their movements don't seem to be that much. Factor in the construction cost, damage/maintenance from salt water erosion, large fish bumping into it, the weather, etc. It might be feasible for small island communities/nations, but countries with a large landmass to coastal access ratio... its contribution to the overall energy sector might not be that significant. But every little bit of renewable, environmental risk-free energy helps, so, good stuff!

In the US, I believe that component in CRTs is called a "horizontal oscillator" instead of a "flyback transformer" (but could be that they are distinct yet related things). I've always been easily able to hear those, but am not usually bothered by them anymore since CRTs are fairly rare at this point. But this video proves that my 36 year old ears can still pick it up.

I feel like my hearing is bad -- I always want TVs louder than other people so I can make out what is being said, and in normal conversation it always seems like people are mumbling if there is any background noise at all. And I'm one of those annoying loud-talking Americans, especially if I'm talking on the phone (fortunately I don't get/answer many phone calls when I'm in public). But my hearing range pitch-wise seems to be exceptionally high, and not diminishing much with age (yet).

There's a fun easter egg for people like me at the end of that video. He put pulses of that CRT horizontal oscillator pitch where you can see the "Things You Might Know" text on the red background. I recognized it as Morse code, but couldn't decipher it even though I have an Amateur Radio license (I don't do code). In the comments at YT, people are claiming that the code translates to "never gonna give you up" -- so I guess he's Rickrolling people who both A) still have young enough ears to hear that 15kHz range *and* B) are old school enough to know / recognize Morse code. That's a pretty small target audience for an easter egg!

They messed up a little bit. Hand wound pocket watches don't tick in the traditional sense as they have a balance spring that causes the balance wheel to oscillate at a resonant frequency typically much greater than once per second (usually at least 4 beats per second). Only quartz watches have the classic tick/tick/tick sound each second. Those only came out in the late 1960's and don't require winding.

Your arguments are the same kind used by black lung / coal miner or cancer / smoking skeptics. Sure, it seems like when we control for every other factor in longitudinal studies that these factors are strong predictors. But you can't guarantee that all coal miner will get black lung or a smoker will get cancer. So it must be some other lifestyle factor.

Same with climate change. Your right wing blogs / websites argue that just because you can't create a model with perfect certainty, the inexorable trend isn't obvious. No thanks, I'd rather go with a 97% scientific consensus that has convinced most scientific organisations, large multinational companies (without a countervailing interest) and national governments from America to China.

If you're so certain that the science is wrong, why not publish a countervailing journal article? Oh wait, no, you almost certainly don't have training in the field or actual understanding of the science, and are just copy pasting fancy phrases like "decadal scale oscillations" because it makes you sound more credible.

Climate science has devolved to scientism. Like a cargo cult it uses methods that share an appearance with it's model, but loses the essence. Science is all about proposing falsifiable tests of a theory, and putting them to the test. As far as I can see climate science has not done this at all, nor does it seem likely to in the near future. None of the current climate models are remotely capable of predicting the decadal scale oscillations that are seen in the Earth's real climate. If they are actually capable of predicting extremely long term trends then we'll have to wait an awfully long time to test that.

I agree that it will be self-correcting, but the process will sow seeds of doubt in all of science. That's ok, doubt is good.

I've had a few trial flights in an R22 (the heli in this video) and he's not kidding.

FLYING a helicopter is pretty easy, but hovering is an absolute bastard. That Pilot Induced Oscillation thing? If you want an idea of what it's like, get a plastic cup and balance it on the end of a stick, and the balance that on the palm of your hand. Then fill the cup with water. Now don't spill any.

Almost every touch you make is a complete over-correction and just makes things worse.

And the most depressing thing is when the instructor takes the controls and then levels out with seemingly no effort or thought.

Still, helicopters are great fun and if you ever get a chance to do a trial flight, go for it!

http://videosift.com/video/THE-OSCILLATION-Waste-the-Day

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

You can accept Rowdy Ronda Rousey in her MMA pursuits, yet somehow military men singing Barbie Girl is terrifying. Women can be anything, yet men can be men alone.

The society likes itself some inequality, that's for sure. The elusive nature of it is a terror that persists in all dualism (which is a false, fatalistic construct). The simple solution is to reject all labels, and to accept the oscillation of our being, which is merely the transitory and oft chaotic nature of the mind.

I like the little oscillating thingy-ma-bob that's visible in the head on shot. It makes it look like the driver is pedaling the car like a bicycle.

edit: Oh, it's the license plate. Serves me right for not watching in full screen.

Neither, they've stimulated an oscillation of the free surface electrons in a wire and taken a diffraction pattern of that standing wave of electrons, using an electron microscope. It's sensationalism.

I was immediately apprehensive when the video stated that the light was confined to travelling along the nanowire and that it is reflected at either end and forms a standing wave. What is the photon interacting with at either end of the wire that reflects it?

The answer is that they haven't imaged light, but instead surface plasmons - oscillations of free electrons on the surface of the wire. Light is used to stimulate the plasmon, and the plasmon is used as a representation of light, which is imaged. However, electrons have mass and light does not.

A lot of reasonable people are calling this pop-science bullshit generated by the publicity department of whatever group published the study. Or rather, not that it's bullshit but that the explanation and headline are gross misrepresentations of what physical interactions are making the image.

To elaborate on the captain's explanation:

Each barb of the feather is bending downward under its own weight due to the force of gravity. The weight of the barb exerts a downward bending force on itself. When the feather begins to fall, each barb is no longer affected by gravity, and so, recoils to its "natural" position of minimal tension. Though I can't see it in this video, I assume that each barb actually oscillates a bit about its natural position.

As a bonus, it manages to keep time only few orders of magnitude worse than a 50 cent quartz crystal oscillator does. Impressive.

(And yes, of course I know it's really meant to be jewelry more so than a watch)