I'm guessing purely from a forces standpoint that if you were stood up, you'd be a lot more likely to survive than if you were lying down, like the video says. Mainly because your internal organs and brain are about to be decelerating, and you want to minimise the deceleration as much as possible. Your extremities might get pulverised, but without the organs they're not much use anyway.

There's some historic example about a 1945 bomber crashing into the Empire State Building, severing the ropes and inducing free-fall, but the lift's ropes coiled up and cushioned the occupant's fall and they lived. I just looked it up, and apparently only several times has free fall ever happened, only killing one person. But apparently people die from falling in the shafts, mechanics caught in machinery and strangulation from scarves caught in doors.

These tips never really sit properly with me.. I want to know why the rule is important, perhaps contrasting it with pictures that are similar but somehow fail to meet the same standard, or maybe offset the picture slightly from it's normal alignment and show that it doesn't work as well.

When it says "use natural frames like windows and doors!" and shows a few pics of windows and doors, that's not evidence of how good windows and doors are for framing pictures, it just shows that some pictures of windows and doors are nice. Diagonals create movement? Well the first pic was of a kid running, and the second one in the snow looked perfectly still to me.

I've yet to see one of these that really sells me on the idea that composition trumps subject matter.. the pictures are always of interesting things, and whilst i'm willing to believe the composition makes it interesting, it hasn't proved that to me, and i can always find or create examples that don't work within the rule.

Do people really think like that?

That is utterly terrifying.

I rather feel that that puts the argument in a skewed light. Essentially, we are either in full awareness of the facts and long term results of fracking or we are not. If we are not yet, why on earth would we pursue it now? We have alternative forms of energy production, it's just a whole bunch of very rich people aren't quite done selling us oil yet.

The shale will still be there, and we may have developed more efficient and safer means of extracting it. And we will have to deal without oil eventually, what better time to begin, whilst we still have some that we can get if we utterly must? We are not yet in crisis but they want to take a risk, that's got to make you ask a few questions. I don't have a detailed scientific knowledge of the subject, but i would know if it was proven safe, and it isn't yet.

Incidentally or otherwise, the first earthquake that i've ever felt in my life happened very shortly after they began a new testing site for fracking nearby - one of two earthquakes that happened in short succession after the first wave of tests. I live in the north of england.. they never happen. It's worth looking into before we start doing it.. the last person i'm going to trust with the future of this planet is an oil baron.

@BoneRemake - let me know which bit of my horseshit you want me to look past and i'll attempt to look past it and see what you describe. Or was it an empty sound-bite? My criticism was valid - newt said everything that needed to be said on that subject, and yes i can in retrospect see the value of the video as a demonstration of the fracking process. But you don't have to be a hippy to try and see positive and informed decisions made in the world, but if it makes me one then i'm glad to be one. What does that make you? No need for name calling, it generally means you've not got an argument.

I'd just like to mention that it really, really suits the pro-fracking lobbyists to try and ridicule people and try to conjure mental images of the long-haired flower-child hugging trees and not showering and wearing tinfoil hats. It turns real, intelligent, professional people who care about what happens around them into caricatures, and it belittles their reasoned and sensible argument without even addressing it. It is a tactic as old as the hills.. i'm sure you're not a lobbyist, but i can't help think they're smiling knowing that the old seeds they scattered around took root somewhere..!

Absolute horse shit. If you think it's propaganda, i think you should downvote it, but that's just my opinion.

"But when people are not only wrong, but so dismissive of those who know a thousand times more than they do, one realizes that such people are simply ineducable: they don't know how to assess evidence or argument; they don't know what real scholarship consists of; and they don't know who the real scholars are; yet they do not hesitate for even an instant before insulting and ridiculing scholars whose shoes they are unfit to tie, often people who have spent decades immersing themselves in the study of a particular subject." -- Trancecoach's inspiring profile quote.

@Trancecoach - keeping in mind that you hold scientific rigour in the highest regard, judging by your love for the text above - could you please tell me what you think of the paper after my criticism?

You can either claim that i do not have a scientific objection to the paper, or you can admit that the paper is unscientific, and therefore meaningless in the context of a scientific discussion about climate change.

Surely a man of science such as yourself (see above paragraph, very inspiring) wouldn't disagree with me - no uncertainties, highlighting of meaningless data points showing a total lack of statistical understanding, no key or legend for plots rendering them COMPLETELY useless, not listing sources therefore none of it is provable, having sarcastic digs at previous scientific work..... It isn't as though i've nit-picked problems with it, these are problems that render the work meaningless. The author is not making a scientific argument, and this is a scientific debate.

Right?

Would you say, perhaps, that you don't 'know how to assess evidence or argument?' That you 'don't know what real scholarship is, nor who the real scholars are?'

Please. Please read your own profile quote back to yourself and consider it and how it relates to your own approach. I would love you to come out of this with a net gain in understanding, i am not trying to ridicule anyone. Ensure that you are one of the educable.. I have also had to reconsider my own approach in the past, i would say it's a good thing.

Your PDF source:
- I cannot find the list of 'climate models' constantly referred to, without a clear identification of what models he's referring to, any argument relating to those models is completely besides the point. How can i fact check that? This should be VERY clearly covered early on, it's the most basic of introduction to your work.
- Top of page 3, unscientific jab at a previous scientist's contribution. Can we stick to scientific arguments please?
- What, no uncertainties? Am i in pre-school? How do i know he hasn't taken the top uncertainty of every model and the bottom uncertainty of every real measurement? These graphs are absolute dog shit.
- Figure 3 - no decent scientist would put an arrow pointing to "subsequent reality" in contrast to the models. That arrow points to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, and statistically speaking is fucking worthless (technical term). Plot a trend of the data, this is basic stuff.
- Figure 4 - see previous point, by eye the trend of the data would sit nicely near the conservative estimate made in 1990. If i could see the uncertainties (see previous point) i would know how reasonable this lower estimate was. Without it, i only have the arrow pointing to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, which distractingly exaggerates the difference.
- Figure 5 - again referencing "all climate models" which are not specified. Even if i assume this person is telling the truth, how can i check it?

Now i'm going to single this one out, because i'm particularly annoyed by this:

- Figure 6 - DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A KEY TO SHOW WHAT THE COLOURS MEAN - there is no explanation whatsoever, merely a talk of hotspots and how there isn't one...... and furthermore the source of what he calls the 'real data' links to nothing, and unless i'm mistaken, he blames the scarcity of the source on the government.

Trance.......... you are not applying the correct critical review process. This is absolute hogwash, and is totally unprofessional, and i am not surprised it is not published - i checked for you, btw.

Ah yes, freedom. As in bend over, here comes the freedom.

And huge heels.

That was absolutely hilarious...

Well there's no other way i can think of to say this.. but it's a good job she's in good shape and a long way from ugly, otherwise i think the comments would be very different. It's funny how videos you think would get slaughtered are full of polite inquiry and condolences when there's a level of physical attraction involved...

I respect anyone's choice to do or not do anything they choose. I thought the same way about it until I started to wonder if I wanted to go to my grave not knowing what it felt like out of some stubborn desire to win an imaginary "drug free" sticker at the moment of my death.

I saw some people who smoked it and were a) not addicted or changed by the act and b) functioned excellently and contributed greatly to society (in the form of music and literature and art). So I tried it, and I'd say it taught me a way to cope with my brain and how it works, so I can fight long term depression.

I'm sorry that he didn't stress that there are absolutely no causal links established either between psychosis or education. I still strongly believe that there will be a link between psychosis or mental illness and the willingness or desire to try it - which in turn would give them medicinal relief and in effect they end up unwittingly self medicating. We know it has medicinal qualities as did our ancestors. I think that the link between poverty and social elements greatly affect the uptake rate, having grown up both in council estate (very poor) areas and middle class areas between parents I can vouch for that disparity personally.

I think it's an obvious logical conclusion, and all I need is evidence to disprove it. Until then I certainly will not apologise for using something that has been of the earth for millions of years over something mixed and concocted by pharmaceutical companies that have documented side effects, overdose risk, and actual addiction.

Only someone who shouldn't be trusted to put their trousers on in the morning would allow the law to develop without questioning its validity. You are literally and voluntarily giving up your right to self determination by doing so, and putting your future self determination in the hands of fallible lawmakers.

Why do you think that those in power are perfect? And if not, why do you keep acting like you do - i.e. trusting and allowing anything and everything they say to be your moral compass?

What's the greatest psychological hoax of all time? Was that the "ima let you finish" thing?