The pivots strike me as ... weird. It's strange how someone can say something one day and people get behind him and believe that thing and then say the complete opposite the next day and people still get behind him and believe that new thing. Like... I'll never forget the Trump statement stating Mexicans are rapists or that he insulted a decorated war veteran who criticized him (McCain) by saying that he's a loser because he got captured. These things will forever cloud my perception of who this man is. But some don't seem to have that same 'type' of memory...

And now for his policies to shift so dramatically and for people to just continue to support him... It's... weird. Like there's this collective, willful amnesia he's tapped into and is taking advantage of.

That space video from @oohlalasassoon tends to proves you right -- there there is no friction on the pivot point, but the top is still surrounded by air. It isn't clear exactly how long it would take before the air resistance would stop the spin, but it seems like it would be quite a bit longer (orders? of magnitude) even than the top in a vacuum.

I wouldn't have called it that way; the pivot point is so small that it has an very small surface area. And the vacuum chamber would leave that variable close to constant, but still resulted in a lot longer spin time -- so the air resistance (friction with the air instead of friction with the pivot point) clearly does have an effect.

Interesting stuff!

what an odd dynamic here on the sift in regards to lantern.

many here (myself included) have seemed to put the mantle of responsibility squarely on lanterns shoulders,as if he represented ALL police....everywhere.

this is not only patently false,it is very unfair.

BUT....

and @lantern53 this is very important you understand this very crucial,pivotal point:

the outrage you see here playing out on the sift in regards to police abuse of power and authority (oftimes directed AT you) comes directly from a perspective on how we all view HOW a true police officer should behave.

we feel (i dont mean to speak for everyone..but im going to anyways) that those in a position of power and authority have to be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.

why?

because they are in a position of power and authority!!!!

and to abuse that public trust.
be it by the use of violence or intimidation,is the greatest of all betrayals.

so when we see a cop abusing his powers,in whatever capacity,we become outraged and angered.
justifiably so in my opinion.

i know you like to poke the hornets nest from time to time and it gives you the giggles.
ok..thats fair enough...
but stop defending the indefensible.

as a police officer you should be the first one condemning those cops who have obviously stepped over the line.
i am willing to be that you have done just that in your time on the force.most cops i know do it that way.
police policing themselves in a roundabout way.

i have full confidence you are good at what you do and have built a skin so thick not much really phases you anymore,but stop defending those cops that are NOT good cops...they are a cancer on your institution and they make those of you who ARE good at what you do treated with suspicion and wariness.

so listen to those here who are telling you how they feel about the bad cops.these are not criticizing you in particular,so dont feel you have to defend every bad cop out there.

so just as you do not represent every cop on the planet,dont allow those bad cops define you.

we are counting on you to be better.

/rant off

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

http://modelmugging.org/personalized-self-defense-instruction-for-women/

Check out the photo about halfway down the page of the woman kicking the padded attacker.

Very powerful, very safe position to fight from if your assailant is a single, unarmed assailant. From the ground position, you can easily pivot, keeping your foot high and between you and the assailant.

They grab your foot? Let them. Pivot and bring your other foot up and kick them in the head while they keep themselves nice and close to you.

I'm far from an expert, but I've spent a lot of time practicing with a bokken (wooden training sword) and the technique he shows here (control/pivot with the right hand, cut with the left) is pretty much identical to a Japanese sword cut (at least as practiced in Aikido and Iaido).

Of course, we all know that Katanas are crap the BEST SOWARD EVAAR!

my VR6 corrado would always go where you wanted it, and it felt like it pivoted on the exact center axis of the car

That's not a swing, this is a swing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gI1uus5F5C8

These "village swings" as they were called were quite commong in eastern Finland and Estonia. They could be, and were, swung all the way around as here, only you'd be standing... Couldn't find footage of that, unfortunately.

Nowadays they're somewhat rare, as they're considered dangerous due to the rather great momentum you can achieve with a big swing. Also, as there is nothing to guarantee the swingers actually stay on the swing, you could get mangled pretty badly if things went wrong.

Incidentally, the Baltic countries apparently have a competitive swinging scene, where the objective is to sping as long as swing as possible fully around. The current men's record holder is one Andrus Aasamäe from Estonia, having managed the feat on a swing with a length from the pivot of 702 cm...

I disagree on the tilt-shift lens (I own one, by the way) - I just think they used a fast wide-aperture lens - they just used it at full aperture and changed the plane of focus back and forth. This is just the simple effect of adjusting the focus. On the shots where everything was in focus they stopped down to get everything sharp.
On the low depth of field shots the camera and lens pivot on a fixed tripod, and you wouldn't get any perspective changes - the camera does not move.
I'm guessing that this was shot with a 70-200/2.8, which is capable of some rather low DoF shots when focused close like this.

i figured it best to bring the convo to your page.
i have derailed enough threads this past week alone.
would be impolite and rude to keep tramping through the china shop willy nilly.

i think i am starting to understand where you are at.
of course i am presuming,but im gonna go with frustration.
anger and outrage to what is being done to the people of syria.

i can relate to that.it is an outrage.
it is heartbreaking.

we disagree on how to proceed.
i am not here to change your mind.

i am here to talk to you as a man.
to maybe help you understand how your passionate posts may be perceived.
your last one i found impertinent,insulting and rude.

if i had to paraphrase this is how i read your last comment on the raytheon post.
"how can you all be so fucking blind?are you all a bunch of fucking pussies?dont you SEE what that man is doing?and you fucking pansies want to talk? you are all retarded,stupid and have no idea what is going on!"

i deleted half my commentary because it really was just me ripping you apart.
and that would not be fair to you and it would be just as insulting.
your post really pissed me off.
but we have talked before.
we disagree more than agree but we have always been civil and i appreciate the time you take to respond.

so the point of me coming to your page is to point out that you are talking to actual humans.
you called me a pussy.
you implied that this situation only bothers you and anybody who came to a different conclusion in regards to how to proceed in syria was not getting the plot.
was that your intent?
did you actually MEAN to imply that anybody who disagreed with a military resolution was a pansy?

well..i dont think so.
i think you are just really passionate about this and frustrated that nothing is being done.
outraged at the violence being perpetrated upon innocent people.

i feel ya.i truly do.
and i would be willing to bet the very people you chastized as being weak in their approach feel you as well.

the first thing we need to address is the fact we are all armchair quarterbacking.we have no influence nor power to dictate what happens in a country on the other side of the planet.
so basically all our bickering and arguing is a cathartic release for a situation that is horrid,horrifying and complicated.

the second is really just questions i would like to ask (and you could promptly tell me to go fuck myself).

1.how would a limited strike upon assads regime change anything that is happening on the ground?

this is really the only question you have not answered and to me it is pivotal in understanding your logic.

i have my suspicions but i await your answer.
and my apologies if i cam across snarky.
i was angry at the time.
till next time.
namaste.

yeah If I got a problem with surveillance, I can vote it out. I can't vote out a terrorist attack. I can't vote out a CEO

demonstrate to me that they're using this surveillance to harass civilians or using it for some other demonstrably oppressive way then I might be on board.

Till then, you're just mad that they merely have the info, which is hypocritical because the corporations collected the data in the first place, but people only got mad when gov't had it = hypocrisy.

turn off your cell phone and your computer and go live in the mountains if you want to prove you're not a hypocrite.

Gov't is not force, yes you do have a choice, you can leave the country, you can contact your congressperson.

Gov't is you

And yes, I too have anger fatigue.

That was a nice dodge he did when confronted with the argument that the gov't hasn't abused the information. He just pivoted it away.

I am sick and tired of the double standard between public and private sectors

And yes, it does creep me out that I'm agreeing with Stossel.

They are already. You can go to their homepage and pre-order one right now. The next batch of orders is currently expected to ship out in September, hence the "pre-order" bit. So if you actually want one you can get them within a few months by ordering now, or faster if you get one from eBay (will cost extra though). =)

Though if you're sensible you'd wait for the consumer model, which will have a better screen (higher pixel density to lower the "screendoor" effect, lower switch times for less motion blur, better contrast) as well as other nice features (positional tracking on top of directional tracking, so you can actually look around corners, not just pivot your head). You'll be waiting for those for a year or two though. =)

Penns' a brat, Dad set him up- His brother Chris, a much richer acting talent-Seans' gonna pivot into obscurity and oblivion, poster-child for the death of Hollywood-

You know, initially, I thought this was a good vid. Now that I've learned more about the content, I can see how unfair it is. Quite misleading. I think I have to retract my "good on you" thoughts. I'm allowed to be wrong, I think.

Elevatorgate... This topic of misogyny in atheism... This entire subject still confuses the shit out of me. How it exploded into a huge deal, whether or not it was an exaggeration... God, it still has me feeling conflicted and confused to this day. The original video that sparked the whole thing was:
http://youtu.be/uKHwduG1Frk?t=4m35s

And rewatching it - I remember why it rubbed me the wrong way. Yeah, there were a ton of reasons why the dude shouldn't have done what he did. Yes, it was creepy. Yes, poor timing. Very poor. But it's the "sexualizing me creeps me out" comment that gets me. It wasn't the the fact that she was stuck on an elevator with some creepy dude who had no tact that creeped her out. It was the sexualization. That always rubbed me wrong - but I am pretty sure it's not what she meant.

If a guy likes her and asks for coffee because he's attracted to her, that's not a big deal. But that's not what happened - that leaves out the important bits. Everything else surrounding the coffee request was a big deal - and yeah, she has the right to say "Guys, don't corner girls you don't know in the elevator to ask them out or back to your hotel room. Not a smooth move and it's really scary. Seriously." But that's not what she said creeped her out... Pretty sure that's what she meant, though. Or something close to it. I very much doubt she meant "Guys, never try to flirt with me. Sexualizing me in any way creeps me out."

Words are a bitch and people read the wrong things into them. That term "sexualized" is probably the pivotal piece of the entire "controversy." Which is a shame, since the whole experience is a valuable lesson to socially awkward, dumbass dudes: don't do the shit that guy did, it's not good.

So from this flowered all sorts of controversy... That I'm still feeling awfully confused and conflicted about. I still feel like things got blown out of proportion in areas and I DO feel like I couldn't step into these communities and speak my mind, because I'm afraid I'd just get ostracized or attacked. Which is a shame. And it's probably those feelings which fuel any frustration or anger that I have because of the whole topic.

I'm also feeling conflicted, because I still wonder if I don't get it. Maybe there's some sort of serious problem I'm not seeing and I'm actually a misogynist and I have no idea. Hope not.

*timeshift

A freight train that can pivot. His balance is extraordinary! How he finds his feet when he seems to be falling.... Wow!