I'm really impressed by the animation on the juggler. Especially the little extra kick he gives right before he does his backflip. It almost looks as good as motion capture just for a moment.

Yeah SuperSaiyan I'm pretty sure back in these days you didn't get to see your animation in playback until you printed each frame one at a time, then scanned each printed frame one at a time through an optical printer onto a film reel.

Computer models back then were created through direct input of co-ordinate mapping in worldspace, meaning the "artists" would type in the 3-axis co-ordinate of each vertex in the geometry without seeing what it looked like.

After modelling was complete, animation worked the same way... animators would figure out the keyframes by timelining things on paper and with maquettes and stopwatches. Then they'd manually type in the position changes, frame-by-frame... there were no motion paths or CG tweens back then. That's why in Tron the computer animation basically conists of statuelike, singular objects sliding around in space, except for some of the CG tanks, which have a 1-degree of motion turret. It was way too much work to have articulated CG characters.

From the article I posted above:
"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

I think the ultimate point of this article is that the scientific debate is not over. Conclusions have been reached that are not supported by data being collected over the past few years. This includes not only the general hold on rising temperatures, but the record increase in sea ice levels in Antarctica. My favorite part is the end:

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

If the cave 'no longer exists,' then how do you know there was one?

I'm amazed at how much conjecture and 'consensus' is taken for science now days.

Remember this, in the time of Galileo science was absolutely positive that the universe (planets, sun, etc.) revolved around the Earth. They had the models, charts, and mathematical formulas, to prove it, and they all worked. They also had those in power fully supporting their theories as fact. The problem is, they were wrong, despite their models and complicated formulas. Today it's no different, except complicated charts and models are replaced with computer models that are just as 'without a clue' and lacking in any real science as those of old.

Science knows far too little to be able to claim 'this is how it happened' without any real cold hard scientific proof. Otherwise it's an 'educated guess' despite the number of degrees the person(s) may have and how many other scientists may agree with them (have a consensus). It still doesn't make it any more true, it's just a theory.

With that said, all of your figures and models can be fit together beautifully and 'work' flawlessly to 'prove' a point, yet you can be totally wrong anyway.

Sorry, I followed a tangent way too far, but remember that next time someone tries to tell you they know how to predict climate and what's going to happen in the next 10 years.

What's that have to do with jelly fish? I have no clue... oh yeah, they came from a cave that doesn't exist anymore.

Computer models are of course flawed in that they cannot take into account every single variable, but this one takes into account a crap-load of those variables.

Not really. It seems to do quite the opposite.

It seems to take the official story given by the Bush administration and look for explanations that would support that excuse, ignoring any variable that might contradict it, like why WTC 7 fell at all, and the speed with which each building fell.

Well, crypto, I'll first ask where you're getting that 500-600 mph estimate. Come on now. In this case a computer model is an ideal way to examine these sort of events. Assuming that these scientists didn't know the density of steel is ...well...dense to say the least. You says that the solid titanium cores of the jet engines traveling at hundreds of mph could not have gone through more than a column or 2. That sounds like a wild guess to me. No offense, but I'll trust first the people who've spent the last couple years spending 40-60hours a week thinking about it and calculating it.

And I should argue rougy, that explanations are what science is all about. We do experiments, look at the data, and form explanations of it. We can't build and destroy another set of WTCs to test our hypotheses so we build them and destroy them in computers. Computer models are of course flawed in that they cannot take into account every single variable, but this one takes into account a crap-load of those variables. Oh, but of course you're right that it is not a proof. It's a theory.

I still highly recommend the google-video I linked above.
It basically argues better than I could in a stupid post, without wasting a perfectly good day typing.

They HAVE actually crashed planes into test walls in adittion to computer modeling to validate the models. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96phB4fIk7E

Those tests are only based on computer modeling, aren't they? Nobody's actually crashed a plane into a containment dome to see what the real risk is, right?

As far as global warming, who was burning fossil fuels 100,000 years ago to cause that warming?

How about 18,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene? Lots of fossil fuel burning going on then?

Climate is a described by coupled sets of non-linear relationships whose actual variables haven't even been convincingly identified.

Those pointing to computer models are either frauds or incompetent; as the models are worthless. Every single line of that code needs to be held up to the light of day; the fudge factors, approximated physics, poor math, and then the whole sections where they have no idea but just wing it.

Global warming is just a tool to empower bureaucrats and unaccountable international organizations who want to control you. With communism and socialism disreputable, it's the new vehicle.

Known causes of climate change:

(1) Astronomical Causes

11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )


(2) Atmospheric Causes

Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps


(3) Tectonic Causes

Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.

Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

Scientific fact doesn't support the man-made global warming THEORY, which exists only on flawed, unprovable computer models and in the mind of the Goracle, here making a final stand to create a meaningful legacy.

The global warming hoax is a power grab by socialists and Big Government-loving serfs. They deserve credit for telling one of the biggest, most ridiculous lies in history--that "excess" water vapor is killing the earth--and then announcing 'the debate is over' and threatening anyone who dares disagree.

This is straight-up fascism from envirofanatics, appealing to the guilt of the trendy and ignorant.

At least admitted communists and socialists (same thing) don't shy away from the labels. They're dead wrong, but at least they're honest. Not so these miscreants.

Ergo Proxy is a science fiction suspense anime television series directed by Shukou Murase, with screenplay by Dai Sato et al. This is the opening that starts off the show from episode 3, the song is "Kiri" by Monoral. Ergo Proxy features a combination of 2D digital cell animation, 3D computer modeling and digital special effects. The series has some cyber punk elements.

The story initially takes place in a futuristic dome city called Romdo, built to protect its citizens after global environmental apocalypse. In this utopia, humans and androids (AutoRevs) coexist with each other peacefully under a total management system. A series of murders committed by berserk robots infected with the Cogito Virus are starting to jeopardize the delicate balance of the social order. Behind the scenes, the government is conducting secret experiments on a mysterious humanoid lifeform called Proxy, which is believed to hold the key to the survival of mankind.

In an interview, Dai Sato describes his latest project.

"It is set in the future. A group of robots become infected with something called the Cogito virus, and become aware of their own existence. So these robots, which had been tools of humans, decide to go on an adventure to search for themselves. They have to decide whether the virus that infected them created their identity, or whether they gained their identity through their travels. This question is meant to represent our own debate over whether we become who we are because of our environment, or because of things that are inherent in us. The robots are all named after philosophers: Derrida and Lacan and Husserl."

Sorry but this statement really seems to defy logic:
"the theory that most of the warming is due to human industrial activity is unlikely and based on "computer models," NOT FACTS."

It doesn't require computer models to analyse polar ice cores that clearly demonstrate the increased global average temperatures, and the near exact correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature graphs.

Computer models, use human theories, and extrapolate on them, computers don't come in 2 flavours (hippy & redneck) they just crunch formulas. If you wanna stick your head in the sand thats fine, just don't encourage others with your hocus pocus.

Global warming is real; the theory that most of the warming is due to human industrial activity is unlikely and based on "computer models," NOT FACTS.

You owe it to yourself to explore both sides of this issue instead of being scared into submission by alarmists.

Real version was posted here FYI http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=8328

Skip to (1:45) in the computer model video and play them side by side. I'll bet these two vids would make a sweet mash-up.

Here you go swampgirl and cobalt... I am in NO WAY a proponent of the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, but from what I've gathered here are some of the main points leading people to believe there is a cover-up afoot;

- the "secrecy" surrounding videos of the crash; FBI agents secured a number of video tapes from nearby businesses that could have captured the event, and upon litigation for their release under the freedom of information act only the two 1-frame-per-second videos taken from the entrance gate were handed over. This has been explained as the request not being specific enough, and could be the FBI being overly cautious to release to the press footage they don't hold copyright to (they got in trouble for the JFK footage). As with anything held classified, people's imaginations tend to wander, and beliefs that they're hiding a terrible truth begin to form.

- the plane was not intercepted, and there was what appears to be a complete breakdown in what the FAA and the Airforce were supposed to do in this situation.

- the side of the Pentagon that was attacked was "under construction" and not fully staffed; also it was opposite the side occupied by the higher-ups, like Rumsfeld.

- the plane skips over the White House in favor of the larger Pentagon, and is then noted (I have not read the official accounts) to have quickly dove thousands of feet while banking a large turn in order to hit the Pentagon, and this maneuver would be difficult if not impossible in that aircraft, certainly for a pilot of little experience (again, this is what they say, and I don't know what the officially tracked flight path was).

- this huge plane was piloted extraodinarily well by the hijackers (as morbid and terrible as that is to say), and hit the building at practically ground level, after diving very low and clipping a number of highway lights, while flying 350mph, leveling off, and not hitting the ground.

- there is a line of dead grass in the lawn of the Pentagon before the attack that is only a few degrees off of tracking the direction in which the airplane struck (I thought this was an interesting coincidence, and is clearly visible in a video I submitted before, but has very reasonable explanations; http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=2812 )

- the appearance of the crash site: looking at pictures of the event, you don't see much of an airplane, nor any damage to the ground, nor much of a hole in the building (atleast at first, before fire crews begin tearing away damaged sections). This lead to accusations of a missile attack or a smaller airplane piloted remotely and precisely. This is the claim that this video is addressing; that the appearance of the site actually matches what could be expected in a computer model.

So there you go. Pretty lame, I know, but those are the big ones. If anybody knows ones I missed, I guess you could share them if you feel like it.

I'm confused as to how there could be a conspiracy here. A plane hit the Pentagon. There is zero way to dispute that unless you ingnore *all* the footage and physical evidence and eye witnesses. Why do we need to prove it happened with a computer model?