>> ^juliovega914:

This type of gear is commonly used so that you can have a gear ratio (mechanical advantage) that is a variable as a function of angle of rotation of the gear. Its difficult to tell just from this video if that is happening in this case (as oppose to simply having a z-constrained contact point, not unlike a helical gear). If the contact point moves from left to right in the x direction (perpendicular to the axles, in the direction from gear center to gear center) the leverage changes and so you can have a regularly variable gear ratio, which is useful for certain applications such as periodic motion generators.
One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear. It would take an extremely small axial motion for the drive gear to transfer its torque to the right gear and away from the left, and would likely result in extremely minimal galling and gear damage since the gear is pretty much kept in proper shape. In a standard spur gear, this would require the use of huge numbers of extremely tiny teeth, which anyone who knows their solid mechanics would tell you that they are very weak compared to something like this.


I came back just to upvote your comment, I almost forgot

>> ^juliovega914:
One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear.


One thing I'm sure YOU haven't noticed is the right side gear IS touching and still being driven by the center gear.

Gear 1 and gear 2 are meshed normally, with the sides of each "tooth" touching each other at more or less the "normal" way. They rotate opposite to each other.

Gear 2 and gear 3 are meshed "paradoxically", with the "point" of gear 2's tooth pushing on a point half way down the side of gear 3's tooth. They rotate the same direction.

Where 1 and 2 mesh over their entire length, 2 and 3 come in contact only at one point, 2 sliding "down" 3.

This type of gear is commonly used so that you can have a gear ratio (mechanical advantage) that is a variable as a function of angle of rotation of the gear. Its difficult to tell just from this video if that is happening in this case (as oppose to simply having a z-constrained contact point, not unlike a helical gear). If the contact point moves from left to right in the x direction (perpendicular to the axles, in the direction from gear center to gear center) the leverage changes and so you can have a regularly variable gear ratio, which is useful for certain applications such as periodic motion generators.

One thing I am sure many of you didn't notice is that the gear on the far right is not touching the center drive gear at all, despite it only being slightly more distant from the drive gear. Indeed it is spinning in the opposite direction while still not interfering with the drive gear. It would take an extremely small axial motion for the drive gear to transfer its torque to the right gear and away from the left, and would likely result in extremely minimal galling and gear damage since the gear is pretty much kept in proper shape. In a standard spur gear, this would require the use of huge numbers of extremely tiny teeth, which anyone who knows their solid mechanics would tell you that they are very weak compared to something like this.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

[T]he politicalmathblog post comes across as fairly even handed. The point of the first 4 graphs is to explain how a state can grow a bunch of jobs but still have a high unemployment rate.

Read what he's saying about the charts. Each chart is meant to say "Rick Perry's job creation in Texas is awesome!" Chart 1 is raw jobs, unadjusted for population growth, even according to him. Rather than saying "hmm, I wonder if that actually means the jobs situation has improved when you look at population," instead he says:

In a "normal" employment data set, we can easily look at it and say "Yep, that's where the recession happened. Sucks to be us." But not with Texas. With Texas, we say "Damn. Looks like they've recovered already."

Liar!

Chart 3 is a similarly unadjusted factor, though at least he puts it as % of raw jobs grown, so it's not as distorted.

Chart 4 finally reveals what's going on -- Texas's population is growing way faster than it's creating jobs. Aha! That's why the unemployment rate has just been going up!

Moreover, it means the jobs market in Texas is really getting worse, because while there have been jobs created, the number of people looking for a job per job opening has actually increased. Does he summarize it that way? Nope, not remotely.

Instead he summarizes that finding by saying:

People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
His supposition that Texas is the victim of it's own success is the only controversial statement in that section, and he clearly labels it as his own opinion.

It's not the only controversial statement, but it's the most blatant falsehood of the whole article. Yes, he makes it clear that it's his theory, but he's presenting his theory while summarizing the data that invalidates his theory!

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Meanwhile your think progress article seems completely irrelevant. Since it doesn't normalize for population size, their graph is naturally going to have longer bars for larger states, so calling someone the "worst" is basically just saying, "its bar goes in the wrong direction and it's a big state."

The politicalmathblog didn't either, and you're not rejecting it out of hand. Everyone who cites some statistic in pursuit of calling Texas's job record a "miracle" has to ignore the size of Texas's population, and it's population growth rate.

If you account for those factors, it looks like a below-average jobs record, and we can't have that.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

But do the directions of these bars even mean anything? Look at the "best" state on the list. It's Michigan. Is Michigan's economy doing well lately?

The bar isn't meant to show goodness or badness, but the rate & direction of change. Michigan was in bad shape, but it's improving quickly.
Here's the unemployment rates of Texas vs. Michigan.

Texas was at 4.5% before, rose to about 8% and then never really got better. Michigan started at 7%, rose to 14%, and then rapidly went down to 10%. Both are unfortunately taking turns for the worse as the economy weakens again.

What's that mean? Hard to say in isolation, but someone could easily make a bunch of charts to support the idea of a "Michigan miracle", and spin a story about how it was Obama's rescue of the auto industry that's responsible, and that Texas has stagnated at its peak because it refuses to engage in fiscal stimulus.

You know, sorta like politicalmathblog did for Texas...

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
This makes me believe that this measurement has little to do with the actual economic health of a state.
Maybe some smarty pants economist can come explain why I should care about that chart, but for now I don't, and I don't think you should either.

If you want a smartypants economist saying the same thing I am, I'll point you to the link included in the thinkprogress article with Paul Krugman giving his analysis of the Texas job situation.

>> ^gwiz665:

Establishment clause.
He is using his position in state to propagate religion in general, even if it is non-denominational. That is preferential treatment to religion compared to no religion.
He is welcome to do it privately, but he is not allowed to mix his state-job together with his religionism, because he muddies the water that separates church and state.


One--Texas isn't even really a state... Two--does he actually propagate or just ask for a gathering? Propagating would be specifically arguing for a religion of his choice or religion at all. You know, I have prayed in the past. Sometimes it was necessary for me. This, even though I am atheist. It was about the psychological effects (Although when I pray it is a rare thing indeed.)

I know there is no God and I don't pray to one. So if I would, for whatever reason, ask for a prayer day, even for spiritual things, I am not necessarily propagating anything more than a state of mind. That's spiritual to me. My wife breastfeeding was spiritual to me (The first two babies... the third, I was like 'Fuck it.')

Of course Rick Perry is sliding a disingenuous motive in there. But what the heck. He didn't, in this video, advocate for anything inappropriate.

Also, the first amendment is at odds with the establishment clause anyways... And even if it is not--are you suggesting that the literal interpretation should always be followed in the constitution like atheists are demanding are followed in the establishment clause? That's dangerous. "The right to bear arms" has no limitations whatsoever. You couldn't argue that times have changed because the law has not. And before we get into the term militia, I will explain it. Back then it meant, "all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service." Dictionary.reference.com

So yeah, let's err on the side of reason.

Geek Talk is not a place I ever go to -- I am woefully out of touch.

I am the person using Tubechop. I use it because it is easier for me.

Ant has kindly sent me a link to an article that shows how to avoid tubechop, but my eyes immediately glazed over. It's not that I can't understand it, I just don't want to.

UNLESS there is a compelling reason.

Is there a compelling reason?

As a non-geek, here are some possible compelling reasons. I don't know if any of them are true, I am pulling them out of my ass:

1. Unnecessarily ties up bandwidth (is that even a "thing"? I am pulling that phrase out of my ass too)
2. It costs the Sift money somehow
3. Slows things down (what are "things"? I don't know)

That's all I can make up.

There is one non-compelling reason.... by going through TubeChop, siftbot will never be able to tell if it is a duplicate based on the embed code alone (I think? Maybe it can? I don't know.) But since that "looking for dupe" function fails more often than not, that isn't a good enough reason for me to plow through that (simple) article and squint my eyes to figure out how to read and parse out the embed code.

Anyway. I am willing to do it. I just don't want to.

One compelling argument, and I'll read the damn article. I swear.

Okay, now this whole Azz Bounce thing....

I am starting to get seriously amused by it.

I agree with the science channel. Toooo funny!

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course poverty and parenting matter significantly, but so does teaching. Teachers may well only account for 10-20% of achievable outcomes as she claims in her article, but with enrollment restrictions to their district for many schools and no incentive for good teachers to teach there, the schools mirror the poverty of the region.

I think you're too focussed on sticking within the constraints of NCLB. Rewards and recognition payments can be calibrated to the difficulty of raising standards in schools at different performance levels. If anything, pay for performance could be the very way to attract great teachers into impoverished regions and under performing schools where previously there was no such incentive.

There's no reason law enforcement couldn't work partially on merit. Again you need the right measurements though, not arrest rates, but levels of crime measured independently and regular opinion polls from the region on perceived safety, conduct and manner of police and other indicators.

Similarly, with the right combination of monetary incentives for working in disadvantaged areas, a focus on improvements in standards rather than purely meeting standards you could create a system that addresses many of the issues you raise.

There is no reason that any test needs to be solely the memorisation of arbitrary facts. That speaks more to the failure of exams that fully emphasize predictable questions rather than requiring a broad understanding certain concepts. I agree completely that school is about learning to learn, and partially that involves developing a work ethic and ultimately memorising some facts. There is no reason that good schools can not devote time towards the arts/music/theater when they feel that their students have mastered basic math and reading skills. There could very well be an upper limit to rewards for performance which allows the best schools to be incentivised to differentiate themselves with broader teaching.

I simply don't see how you can argue though that there aren't basic reading comprehension and a certain degree of numeracy skills, that you simply need to make a living in today's world. Skills that can be easily measured through well designed tests.

If intuition isn't good enough:

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1_1,00.html

Executive summary page 15 onto 16:

"Within countries where schools are held to account for their results through posting achievement data publicly, schools that enjoy greater autonomy in resource allocation tend to do better than those with less autonomy. however, in countries where there are no such accountability arrangements, the reverse is true."

"In countries that use standards-based external examinations, students tend to do better overall, but there is no clear relationship between performance and the use of standardised tests or the public posting of results at the school level. However, performance differences between schools with students of different social backgrounds are, on average, lower in countries that use standardised tests."

The only assertion I made about charter schools is to imply that having more of them and allowing more competition for enrollment would not be a bad thing. I am arguing my own point not one of a movie.

You missed my point with the last comment. That's exactly what I'm asking you. How is teaching the only skilled field where paying talented people is anathema?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

I don't know -- and am not interested in learning -- how to update wikipedia. This would be a great place to add the Hitler thing. I am in the middle of reading this -- I wouldn't have made that mistake if your factoid had been in this post.

I am fascinated by how propaganda works. The persistence of it.

Thanks again for sharing that link.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/29/787888/-Hitler.-Was.-Not.-Vegetarian.

Also, liberator of corporate & government secrets ≠ crazed racist despot

just sayin'? oh wait.. no, i sincerely mean that. =]



>> ^bareboards2:

I thought I might get beat up, so I edited it down to a factual statement.

@dannym3141 Cartainly not. Discussions are always a good thing, I am just annoyed with people on both extremes of the issue - people who condemn the game, because they don't like it or it is different than the type of game they like, and fanboys protecting it with beak and claw.

Some people feel to entitled to things they are not entitled to. "Rogues are underpowered, this is a personal attack on me.. blah blah" those kinda people

I think it's a good game, better than most, but in the end, if I don't enjoy it anymore, as it has been for a while, I just don't play it and vote with my wallet.

I guess I'm just the flaccid middle part in this, calling for everyone to calm down.

No offense intended.

Thanks Mint... sorry I overreacted, but I have a chronic phobia for these things and am terrified to know they might be rampant around me! ... but yea, I think I heard something coming from further down south or something like jungle spread of parasites... Anyways, no worries, I have been hanging around the sift enough to figure out that your intentions are indeed pure, I mean, of course, one never really knows, but thanks for the crystal clarity, etc. And the whole embed thing, I imagine can be complicated, still gotta try it, etc... anyways, stay away from those worms!!!! good day.

>> ^mintbbb:

Sorry, I certainly did not mean to insult Mexico. The video I first wanted to post mentioned that it was likely that he got the parasite during his trip to Mexico. But I couldn't find an embed and went with another clip that didn't mention anything about where he might have gotten the worm.
I will remove the 'mexico' tag.
Again, sorry about the mixup. I just took the key tags from the unembeddable video and wasn't thinking.
>>

Thanks Mint... sorry I overreacted, but I have a chronic phobia for these things and am terrified to know they might be rampant around me! ... but yea, I think I heard something coming from further down south or something like jungle spread of parasites... Anyways, no worries, I have been hanging around the sift enough to figure out that your intentions are indeed pure, I mean, of course, one never really knows, but thanks for the crystal clarity, etc. And the whole embed thing, I imagine can be complicated, still gotta try it, etc... anyways, stay away from those worms!!!! good day.

I dont know what goes on psychologically but whenever I see this sort of thing or am in that position ie being under a rock overlap or whatnot, I always think its going to cave in or shift.

I watched this just waiting for it.

Good thing I am mostly deaf since I take my hearing aid off so I can't hear my dentist and nurses.

was the officer justified?
uh....no.
even when you take in all the factors.
what could possibly be the deciding one?
1.the man was riding a harley so therefore must be in a biker gang.possibly the "outlaws"?
2.the man was physically imposing and he wore a threatening and scary bandana.
3.before i pulled the young man over he had gone really really fast and his motorbike made loud noises which frightened me.
i mean really..WHAT was going through this cops mind at that time.

so as we watch this officer attempt to evade any responsibility let us be frank..and clear.
my opinion may be based on little or no information and just by what i have seen here..
let me add my two cents anyways.
this cop over-reacted.
he did the same thing i am doing here...assumed much on little or no evidence and he reacted..poorly.
what i find most offensive is the weaseling.
weasel out of accepting the fact you made a poor snap judgment and a young mans life is transformed forever.
weasel out of accepting responsibility for your snap judgment which will most likely manifest in the form of denigrating the young man.a common tactic to discredit the victim in order to avoid any responsibility.
this..in my opinion is the weakest and lowest of all human behavior.
stand up and be a man.admit to the family that you made a mistake and you are sorry and will do whatever is in your ability to make it right.
accept the responsibility you fucking snivel nosed coward.