My favourite simulations occur around 11:15 when he starts dropping "trajectories" or "packages" into the simulation. Think of them as miniature probes that get swept up into the airflows.

Skillful as in skillful editing.

Theoretically the whole circus act could almost be pulled off with lighter than normal pucks, allowing the puck trajectory of the first and third shots and a quick wrist shot 2nd (which is very ulikely for a 7yo). In any case the pickup before the juggling looks all wrong - could have conceivably been done with a ball just to make the editing easier.

Take a look at something like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLamA97C14A
to compare the stick and skating skills and puck physics of a more probably real 7yo without the drama.

It looked like the car did it's absolute best to avoid the last girl in the group as it knew she would not move.. A bit of a miracle. And agree, sitting where the trajectory would take a car that's out of control is quite stupid.

This is a really nice example of sinusoidal motions and Lissajous trajectories! The center of mass of all the points makes a circular 1:1 Lissajous trajectory, which gives the false impression that the points are curving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve.

However, to mark this as an 'illusion' is a bit of a stretch. Illusions are created by a failure of our assumptions about a system we are viewing, and strong illusions maintain this failure upon viewing even when the mechanism of the illusion is revealed to the viewer. Many people may have the 'illusion' that the balls were traveling in arcs in the beginning, but once it was pointed out that the balls were traveling in straight lines, viewers have no problem viewing the original movie without being deceived. To call this an illusion would be like calling horse galloping an illusion: http://100swallows.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/horse-dont-hop/, which is another case where people were just incorrectly applying their intuition, rather than properly observing the details.

yea at those ranges and speeds you don't have to angle it up that much higher for it to have a high trajectory, however a 9 mm bullet is still traveling to slow for this to be a plausible shot, sure it could reach, but you would probably have to shoot a lot of rounds to get at least one there

Dutch journalist Jeroen Akkermans keeps uploading scores of pictures taken at the MH17 crash site to his Flickr account. No corpses, just debris -- no warning neccessary.

A few interesting pictures, if you don't mind amateur forensics:
- left wing, top side: damaged by debris coming from the fuselage at an outward trajectory
- window panel, aft-most cockpit window, port side: shredded by shrapnel, downward trajectory?
- second door from the front, port side: no damage from shrapnel or debris
- port-side hatch of the forward landing gear: no damage

So, explosion in the foward-left quadrant, above the cockpit?

I know, I know -- wild speculation, utterly without a point. But it's infinitly less depressing than looking at the latest pictures from Gaza. Bad days to be a news junkie...

Edit: rear door, starboard side -- no damage

It needs to be placed at 9 Vincent Square in the football field and loaded with Greek fire boulders with a trajectory dialed-in for Buckingham Palace for a November 5th celebration not soon forgotten...

What kind of babble is this? Be specific, how is he actually using the magnetic field to tell where the prey is? Why does that depend on being North Aligned? How does facing north help plot a trajectory? Sounds like pseudo-science BS.

..some desert-dwelling snake, bird, or bug maybe-Doubt anyone that deft with a Kalashnikov would choose a trajectory over a populated area.

That only seems to address the option of a military strike. What of the deployment of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians? The evidence from the UN report seems to remove any doubt to the fact that hundreds, maybe better than a thousand died in the chemical attacks on Aug. 21 alone. The evidence even further shows the trajectory from several craters point towards one of Assad's military bases. If the previous evidence had not already been sufficient, surely the conclusion can at least be made that the burden of evidence clearly suggests that Assad's forces committed the attack. That evidence as well is about as strong as it could possibly get. Even videotaped evidence of Assad's forces loading and firing said rockets would be hard to be declared more conclusive. After all, maybe it's just fake footage by America, or has been misrepresented or some other possible fault.

My trouble when speaking to the next generation is how exactly do you tell them that yes, Assad is a dictator deploying chemical weapons to maintain his hold on power, but the good and moral path is for us to not get involved with anything but words. Why? Well, because we might make the situation for Syria's civilians even worse. I just don't subscribe to the world view that ignoring in all but word such a dictatorship is the 'right thing'. When a dictator is deploying chemical weapons to hold onto power I support and advocate for the use of force against that dictator, and the absence of such by the entirety of the UN is to me a crime as well.

Hello again,

Just commented to a video and later noticed it was one of yours. Would've just commented to you instead had I noticed first. I have to say I still don't entirely understand where you come from in all this. Plainly and rightly you mistrust any American claims of humanitarian concern. However, in my view you seem to be misreading Obama's cues. If anything he's appeared very reluctant to go into Syria, as it'd be domestically very unpopular. As far as the Kissinger type pushers in America go, seeing Al Qaida sponsored rebels bleeding themselves out against Russian and Iranian backed Syrian military forces and even Hezbollah forces seems like a dream come true. I can hardly see cold hearted long game analysts in America wanting anything but to just grab popcorn and enjoy the show as their enemies mop each other up. I also see Obama's reluctant attitude as exactly what is being read by Assad and Putin in their responses and almost willful scorn for Obama's red line and apparent giddy eagerness to abandon the threats he'd tied to it. I just don't see the eagerness and enthusiasm for a march to war from America that you do. With an agreement to remove chemical weapons from the area, America is freed of the only possible concern it had about anything happening in the area. That seems evidenced by America's seemingly eager acceptance of it, and tacit recognition of Assad's control of the country out into 2014 in order to implement the agreement.

As for the angle I care about, what is your assessment of the UN inspection and their report? Unless you count them to be on the take of Western powers, or duped and stooged within the war zone where somehow America managed to influence them more than Assad I don't see any ambiguity to the findings. Samples from rockets, soil, and victims alike all tested positive for Sarin gas. The rockets found with Sarin on them had Russian engravings and the craters they could project trajectories from pointed towards a Syrian military base. I'm not sure how you reject all of that by pointing at 'counter evidence' gathered and presented solely by Syrian and Iranian sources.

Here is a link to the actual full text of the UN inspection team's report:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

Their investigation was only about the use of chemical weapons, and not who may have used them. That said, they concluded they found basically irrefutable evidence of extensive deployment of Sarin gas in the region. They also were able to estimate the trajectory of some rockets based on their impact craters and the trajectories are clearly towards a Syrian military compound.

Unless you choose to believe that the UN inspections team is a pawn or puppet of the US, Assad is not being framed, he deliberately used Sarin gas on his own people.

They must have a string of at least a hundred cameras along that trajectory that synchronize their shutters (how they do it in film, too). Must be an expensive setup.

Ehhh... I'm going to side with the car-driver. That guy was either not watching where he was going, or badly estimated his and their trajectories and behavior. Biker was going pretty fast right up until the crash. If he tried to stop at all I didn't see it.

Also, is it my internet connection, or did just that car have a terrible framerate?

I was glad to be rid of some characters. Too many characters have been introduced, not enough have been culled. Season 3 felt very slow and plodding purely because so much of each episode has to be taken up with flitting from one character to another. I wish the plot could stay in one place long enough to get some momentum rather than inching along as it stops in at every character spread accross its world. To be fair, some of GoTs best bits are the odd pairings that get thrown together, I just think that whenever they add a character thats going to get a little time to describe their trajectory the whole thing sort of gets diluted down.