Well, your example doesn't work. The point here is that an IMAGE is moving. If you shine a flashlight into the sky and move it around, the chances of the flashlight image appearing anywhere is almost nil. So there's nothing really to move. Shining a laser on the moon, however, will make an image appear (assuming all other factors being correct, such as lack of clouds, etc). So that image will, in fact, "move" across the surface of the moon. It's no different, really, than shining a flashlight at a wall, and moving it around. The image moves, despite the fact you're doing nothing more than adjusting the tilt of the flashlight.

You're right that a standard flashlight wouldn't be visible from space, let alone another star system. However, if you had a powerful enough beam (or used wavelengths better "suited" for space travel), there are quite a few other stars that are much closer than 100 lightyears. Promixa Centauri, for example, the closest star to our system is only 4.2 lightyears away. So were you to put a sufficiently strong source accurately in that direction, you could even receive a response in your lifetime, were there something (or someone!) there to respond.

I hear what you are saying but I think his premise is unsound.
I can point a laser due north (into the stars) and then switch to point due south (into the stars.)
That doesn't mean anything can cross the universe (known or unknown) in a split second (except maybe Q)


I often thought about this as a kid. If I point a flashlight into the stars, will some entity, out there in space see my bean of light? I concluded that no they couldn't. Besides the fact that the light would get filtered out by space particles long before it reached anywhere, The light moves too slow. I can point my flashlight now and hold it there for one minute. Then that beam would have to travel for more years (Hundreds? - Thousands)? than even I could imagine until it hit something.

Did the light beam continue to travel through space after the minute I shut off the light or does it keep traveling? A blip of light traveling through space. If the light we see from stars could be light from stars that burned out years ago, then I suppose (if it was ever strong enough not to be filtered out) that blip would be possible.

So the fact that I can point and shoot a continuous blip of light in one direction in space, and then wave it around to another section of space, doesn't mean that blip is moving from one planet to the next (or even one galaxy to the next.)

This idea most likely asks more questions than it answers and I'm sure we could talk forever but I just think light defies the basic standards of measure we tend to use on it.

>> ^Bhruic:

Well, for the pixels thing, he specifically says "pixels", not "light emitting from pixels". The pixels themselves never move. The light the pixels emit (if any) does move, of course, to get from the pixel to your eye. But that's a separate issue.
He's also not saying that flicking your wrist speeds up light. The premise of this video isn't that light can travel faster than what we know as "the speed of light", just that "something" can travel faster - in this case, the image of a laser. The speed at which the image is traveling across the surface of the moon would indeed be faster than the speed of light. Which is fine, because as he points out, images don't have mass.

Sorry for the reeeaaally long post @marinara but I was trying to be brief:

1. "Zimmerman was not part of any REGISTERED neighborhood watch group."

Zimmerman did indeed say that he was "captain" of his neighborhood watch, and I can't find any proof that he wasn't, do you know why? Because there is no documentation regarding his neighborhood watch program, because it was unregistered and existed only in the heads of two or three people. And, might I add, it was certainly not "official".

When a person forms a neighborhood watch, it might be important to take into account the community that they live in. What if the community doesn't want a neighborhood watch program? What if they do, but they feel they don't want you representing them, as some people in Zimmerman's community clearly felt?

The fact is that Zimmmerman's self-appointed title carried no legitimacy at all. If my friend Cletus and I want to call ourselves the neighborhood watch, we can. I can call myself "secretary treasurer" and he can call himself "supreme overlord". But it has no more meaning than when my friend Nick and I get together and call ourselves a "fourteenth level archer", and "Nargok, the dwarven battlemage" (respectively). Only, in the case of the neighborhood watch titles, one must consider the community they are attempting to represent. This is why most watch programs (like the one you linked to) register themselves with the National Sheriff's Association, or some other organization.

2. "Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns."

What you documented on the "City of Oxnard, Police Department" website was that citizen watch volunteers (who are registered) are encouraged to make arrests when they have seen a crime being committed, in particular, when they see someone committing the crime of vandalism. All US citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but no one has the right to arrest or detain anyone for "suspicious behavior", even if that person is walking down the street wearing a hoodie, and looking skeptically at the person following them.

As to the gun, the same Oxnard website you linked to, on the same page, advises that no one carry a weapon at all, except for a heavy-duty flashlight that might be used to defend one's self in an emergency. Unfortunately, a Google search relating to neighborhood watch organizations carrying guns is inundated with articles and polls regarding this tragic case. The fox news polls indicate that a minority of people questioned think neighborhood watch members should carry guns, but those people do not reflect the views of any actual organization (that exists outside of its member's heads) that I know of.

I'd like to refer you to the response to the NY Times from Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels. The Angels are one of the most prolific watch organizations in history, with chapters all over the world. They were founded in the late seventies in NYC when the areas they patrolled were considered wastelands. Despite several attempts on the founder's life, and the loss of a few of its members over the years, they still do not advise carrying guns.

3. "...why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd."

I say it for two reasons: the first is that Martin was unarmed. There are no eyewitness reports, or even statements from Zimmerman that I've heard, that indicate that Martin attempted to use his bag of Skittles or his can of iced-tea as a weapon. The second reason I say it is that according to the US legal system, Martin was still a child at the time of his death. If he were in the "Child Protective Services' program, he wouldn't have gotten out until he was eighteen, which is the age that US citizens officially become adults (unless they're insane). Some children are tried as adults in the US, but child-victims are never represented as adults.

I understand if you think it's more appropriate to refer to Martin as a teenager, or possibly an adolescent, or even a young adult. But I don't think so, and I'll tell you why: I'm thirty-one years old. I'm not much older by comparison, but when I see a seventeen-year-old kid, I rarely think to myself, "he's got everything figured out". In fact, I rarely think that about most adults. Sure, I think most kids are smarter than people give them credit for, but I don't think Martin was mature enough to know the law and develop an appropriate response to being pursued for no reason by a man armed with a gun. And the US legal system hasn't made a determination in his case yet anyway.

flashlight searching

Congratulations! Your video, Limbo with a Flashlight, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 12 Badge!

>> ^Quboid:

Anybody want to put this in the parody channel? I'm guessing I'm not worthy, Siftbot you bitch.


*parody

>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (parody) cannot be called by Quboid because Quboid is not privileged - sorry.


Elitist! I am the 99% of sifters!

Your video, Limbo with a Flashlight, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Apparently this hummingbird is a deep sleeper. Having a bright flashlight jerkily played over its face doesn't stop it snoring at all.

>> ^liverpoolfc:

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.
If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.
I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.

You're desperate to paint me as illogical but to me it just looks like you have poor reading comprehension. I don't claim random stops will lead to those other things. I claim that if the government felt they could get away with it, they would do those things.

EDIT: Some people don't understand what liberty and freedom is. I'm not anti-cop or even anti-government. Again, not any more than Ben Franklin or anyone else who gives it a LOT of thought. Randomly stopping people who are just going about their lives to assert your authority by shining flashlights in their eyes and interrogating them, which puts some people into weeks long spirals of panic and paranoia completely unrelated to any actual criminal culpability, is not harmless or purely protective.

>> ^darkrowan:

2nd the motion on keeping night mode. In fact, it'd be nice that all channels had the ability to have (note: not required) a night version of their channel theme. It sucks moving from the main sift to a channel that is much, much brighter. It's like turning a flashlight on your face for a few seconds afterwords.
>> ^Shepppard:
Uhh, well, I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it's been bugging the hell out of me for months.
On firefox, if you're not logged in you can't use the search function.
Also, don't get rid of "night" mode. I honestly can't stand "daytime", too damn bright...
I still miss the old sift Grey though



THIS x 1 million.

This was added to controversy and now I can honestly barely read anything on this page, to the point where i'm considering taking it out of controversy.

2nd the motion on keeping night mode. In fact, it'd be nice that all channels had the ability to have (note: not required) a night version of their channel theme. It sucks moving from the main sift to a channel that is much, much brighter. It's like turning a flashlight on your face for a few seconds afterwords.

>> ^Shepppard:

Uhh, well, I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it's been bugging the hell out of me for months.
On firefox, if you're not logged in you can't use the search function.
Also, don't get rid of "night" mode. I honestly can't stand "daytime", too damn bright...
I still miss the old sift Grey though

But psychologically difficult to empathize with.>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^1stSingularity:
It is hard to be afraid of a robot that needs a flashlight...

Or a robot that has to turn it's head to see and shoot. Real robot infantry would have radar like 360 degree sight and weapons that can shoot realtime in any direction with 100% accuracy. Making them humanoid would be moronic.

My thoughts exactly.>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^1stSingularity:
It is hard to be afraid of a robot that needs a flashlight...

Or a robot that has to turn it's head to see and shoot. Real robot infantry would have radar like 360 degree sight and weapons that can shoot realtime in any direction with 100% accuracy. Making them humanoid would be moronic.

>> ^1stSingularity:

It is hard to be afraid of a robot that needs a flashlight...


Or a robot that has to turn it's head to see and shoot. Real robot infantry would have radar like 360 degree sight and weapons that can shoot realtime in any direction with 100% accuracy. Making them humanoid would be moronic.