Stabilized downhill footage is pretty dope. http://digg.com/video/gopro-stabalized-mtb

It's more natural to hold a phone in portrait (vertical) than in landscape (horizontal). Typically landscape requires 2 hands -- and if filming landscape with one hand, it becomes easy to lose grip.

I know it ruins the cinematic quality, but he didn't film the dude for our entertainment, he filmed it as proof.

It's also a logistical issue, as it is easier to grip a phone vertically than horizontally. This is the reason why there are so many videos filmed in this mode. Especially in situations where people are unable to use both of their hands to stabilize the video, such as running, when in danger, or at the top of a bridge...

Also, his subject is a human which stands upright, so filming vertical allows him to distribute his subject matter across the entire canvas; whereas landscape would cut off the primary focus and distribute the background on either side of the subject, which is unimportant to the situation, in place of filming the man from head to toe in a single frame.

Just for fun, I stabilized the video. I think that this may have canceled out the "extra" shaking from the camera mount.

EDIT: Just noticed in the original, someone is filming a TV.

https://youtu.be/1RQS7zgaeds

For the same reasons they do it with meat, fruit, vegetables and other foods: control, consistency, easier to mix with other ingredients like sweeteners, stabilizers and preservatives.
Most food companies don't treat food the way households do, but as raw material for creating a product.

The simplest counter argument to your catastrophic prediction is the stability of the paleo-temperature record. If there has been a methane 'time-bomb' just sitting there waiting to be set off anytime the temperature got an extra degree warmer then temperatures wouldn't be stable as they have been over the last millenia. The gradual shifts from ice-age to global rain forests wouldn't have been gradual at all, and likely wouldn't have been reversible either.

The more likely answer is our understanding of climate functions and things like just how much methane is likely to escape in a certain time frame is incomplete.

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

Not to poke or prod, but then what would you do to stabilize the country? His fear only worked if he killed harmless civilians, otherwise it wouldn't work at all. It's an all or nothing there.

The democratic government, hardly a corrupt government as the media would have you believe, is actually worse by far now than when Saddam was in power. (Yeah, that's hard to believe...but with the mass terror attacks, beheadings, raping of the Yazidi, unpredictable poverty, and the crime by non-terrorists, it is...) So with wholehearted empathy, I ask again. What would you do to help this even-worse situation?

Your video, Gyroscopic Stabilization in Zero-Gravity with CD Players, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

As I was watching this, the footage started to look familiar... it's a re-cut version of @Zifnab's post with new commentary.

I personally think the new commentary is enough to save it from being a dupe.

IANAMD. My understanding is that contrary to intuitions, deceleration on a motor cycle is more dangerous than acceleration. Maintaining stability is your primary concern, less so velocity of impact. You also don't want to be overtaken by faster traffic, you'd rather see your threats. My friends who do ride motorcycles tell me they are taught to drive aggressively by default. I don't think braking is your first instinct in tight quarters.

Congratulations! Your comment on Wingsuit Video Looks Crazy Using "ReelSteady" Stabilization has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Wingsuit Flight Looks Nuts Using "ReelSteady" Stabilization has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Wingsuit Flight Looks Nuts Using "ReelSteady" Stabilization has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

I could go either way without wider context, I was basing my comments pretty much entirely on my past experience with such people.

However going only off the vid, the couple filming make it clear they hadn't actually paid for the sauces yet, suggesting that the way they asked had caused the conflict if you see what I mean.

i.e. it wasn't withholding already paid for services

When I said entitlement, I really just meant that it seemed like they couldn't handle the idea that they didn't get exactly what they demanded regardless of how they asked or behaved. But it was purely intuition from past experience. Without wider context I couldn't say with any conviction.

I don't have a lot of time for people who conveniently forget you are still a human being just because you work somewhere. I'd always put basic human respect first and never had much time for "the customer is always right" thing if you know what I mean. (I'm not the best guy to hire for such a job as a result)

I think it would be a more civil society if customers were also held responsible for their actions by more companies, but I recognise this is probably hopelessly wishful thinking.

I do recognise that much of our culture is not set up that way, that's why I consider him a braver man than I in some sense. I would just pussy out in favour of economic stability and whatnot.

I would be foolish if I expected things to not work as you have described. But I did feel a little swelling of pride to see the guy appearing to put his dignity before economics. (or just me projecting)

Probably not a smart move, but laudable perhaps in its own little way.
If the job actually matters that much to him, then yes that was clearly self destructive. Though I felt there was a healthy dose of sarcasm when he referred to it as his nestegg. Perhaps I just misread that.

And again, I may just be projecting all of this.

As for the last part, I really just meant that in the grand scheme of things this probably shouldn't matter that much to them. Either they were being assholes, or this guy had bigger problems than they did with his life.

If it had been a habitual problem that could be another matter, but I see no suggestion of that.

Could so easily go the other way, just that the couple instantly set off my "entitled asshole alarm" for whatever reason. It's usually right, but I don't for a moment think it forms the basis of a valid argument. That's why I went to great pains to use only ambiguous language.

I reserve the right to be wrong at all times in life.

OMG...I was SOOOO hoping you would make that argument.
The 'blanket' minimum wage is the minimum we have decided that those living in the cheapest places to live should be paid. I agree, it should be based on cost of living...but the $15 an hour standard is what we've said should be the minimum in back woods Appalachia, and in larger cities it should be well over $20. Reduce the pay at the top to a reasonably high level and that won't cost most businesses another penny.

OK, bay area....you said ""those who choose to live there need to consider their income" ....ignoring the majority of people who are 'stuck' there without sufficient income; those who've lost financial stability, or those born there to poor parents who have never made any choice, and usually their parents who no longer have a choice to make at this point. They simply can't afford to move. The same goes for most low income people anywhere, they don't "choose" to live there, they don't have the luxury of a 'choice'. ...or are you lobbying for free moving and relocation services for the poor?

10 years ago, $15 an hour was not a living wage in many places, the bay area for one. I left there 20 years ago, and $15 an hour was pretty hard to live on as a single man sharing an apartment THEN, I can't imagine how it is now, especially for those with children.

No, you didn't say ONLY kids living at home have minimum wage jobs, but you did mention them as if they are a large percentage of minimum wage workers, and the group we should focus on, and implied that wages should be determined (at least in part) by THEIR needs. They are in fact the smallest group of minimum wage workers, and even they need more money to eventually move out.

Really? " those unwilling to put in the effort and gain the skill required to actually do a decent service to society." If you really believe a large percentage of people working for minimum wage are "unwilling to put in effort" to better themselves, I just don't know what to say. That's completely batshit insane, they work insanely hard for little compensation, with little respite, and absolutely no respect. Most are putting out more than a reasonable maximum effort just to go deeper into debt constantly, there is no amount of effort that makes more time to make more money to pay for training, or an amount of effort that makes tuition free. Also, who do you think will take over for them if they all put in the effort and gain the skill required to actually do a decent service to society"...(whatever the hell that insulting statement is supposed to mean besides implying they aren't decent or serving society today...by choice)?
What are you talking about "Complacency shouldn't be allowed to make life more difficult for all of us"? WHAT?!? OK, yes, so stop being so complacent about the horrendous way we treat those at the bottom of the financial system because that makes life more difficult for all of us by forcing those with 'more' (but not enough 'more' to avoid taxes) to pay higher taxes for welfare, prisons, policing, housing, etc....by making the nation more crime ridden because it's the only way to make a living for so many...by overtaxing our medical system because so many can't afford to be preemptive with their health and only accept medical help when it's at emergency stage...etc.

If the funds to raise the lowest wages don't come from the extravagant pay that goes to the top and are instead being transferred directly to consumers, yes, it's a vicious cycle. That's why you have to ALSO lower top compensation by law, like maybe tie it to the lowest paid worker in the company. That would stop inflation from being a feedback loop with wages.