Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

i fully state that it is impossible as shown...no argument here.

the fact remains one day it could be possible somehow with a different approach... and the links i gave on sensor and recording technology are to that end.

that's the only approach i see besides some other really wacky nonsense idea about metadata/gps/cctv i have... but ive said too much!

In reply to this comment by rychan:
vairetube: Yes, there's a lot of cool research in computer vision, computer graphics, and computational photography. But it's pretty simple to say, in an information theoretical sense, that this CSI stuff is impossible.

Yes you could hallucinate plausible image content (super-resolution), but clearly that's not appropriate for a forensic setting.

But in this case we have a quantized, noisy, low resolution signal and the reflection in the eye could have been generated by any number of incident signals and it wouldn't make a difference in the recorded video signal. The information just isn't there.

Isn't it sad? I like to pretend George Lucas died in the early 1980s. Helps me sleep at night.

Prequels? What are you smoking; Lucas died in '83.

In reply to this comment by rychan:
The acting was indeed terrible, but I still think all three of these movies were 90% of the way to being really excellent, if someone could have just told George Lucas which of his ideas were terrible. And obviously someone else should have directed.

The terrible acting and dialogue from that kid, from Jar-Jar, and even from Natalie Portman just cancel out all of the "wow cool" stuff that is legitimately there.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

i completely agree. toxin cleansing is not always a good idea. they sell detox suppliments at health food stores. this is why i mentioned the contraindications part in the first comment. these are 1) over priced and can either be dangerous, or completely ineffective and crap.

i would love to see some studies about message therapy. its probaby difficult because the vast majority of massage therapists are independent and self employed, the vast majority are undereducated, and medical science has been resistant to embrace it as something that can legitmately improve your wellbeing, i suspect because it is not profitable to them, because therapists are independent and self employed.

i do not think enough education is required to become a massage therapist, as for myself, i already had a degree in radiological technology before i went to massage school and had spent 7 years studying the body from a medical/ scientific perspective. i think higher standards of training would improve the legitimacy of the field and the quality of care. but, i stand by my assertion that massage is rooted in phsyiology and when properly applied can greatly improve well being and prevent a plethora of illnesses. i will defend it to the death!

In reply to this comment by rychan:
>> ^peggedbea:
anyhow, its always good to flush your body of toxins

I upvoted your commented. But I don't agree that it's necessarily good to have a medical intervention to "flush your body of toxins" rather than letting the natural processes play out. I'm not about to go on dialysis to help flush out my toxins when I'm perfectly healthy. I realize that's an exaggerated parallel and that this massage is probably harmless, but I'd like to see some peer-reviewed studies on the matter. You've made an appeal that massage therapy is not junk science, and controlled, randomized, double blind, peer-reviewed trials are the way to prove that.

I realize that the "blind" part of such trials would be difficult in this case, but you can still have it single blind with a proxy intervention that is known to be worthless. Say you're treating them with magnets but actually do nothing.

It does not. This is from the Futurama game that was released in 2003.

In reply to this comment by rychan:
Can someone tell me if this spoils anything in the movies?

In reply to this comment by rychan:
>> ^GabaJ:
I have a question for the physicists - what would happen to an object thrown perpendicular to your orbit down toward earth? Disregard atmospheric drag. After one orbit, would that object come back up towards you as fast as you chucked it?


Good question.

Assumption: you don't throw it far enough towards Earth for atmospheric drag to matter, and you are more massive than the object.

my answer: I don't think so, and it's not a simple matter. Lets say you were in a perfectly circular orbit. You throw the object down and now it's in an eccentric orbit (and so are you, for that matter). It no longer has the same orbital period as you, because it has a longer semi-major axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis) which means it has a slower orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period)

I could be wrong, though.

Thank you for your thoughts. After additional consideration this is what I think would happen: The fastest you could throw an object while in a space suit and anchored to the space station is maybe 20 or 30 miles per hour. As you say, this would put it in an elliptical orbit. If the station orbits once every 90 minutes in a circular orbit, then the object would go straight down and a little ahead as it picks up speed, but only for about 20 some minutes and 10, 15 miles. (this is the part I can't calculate) After half an orbit it would come back up and miss you because no one could throw so accuaretly that they can hit something 30 miles away. Then after one full orbit, it would come back from "above". and so on...

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 16 stars, earning you status of Bronze Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

I think your Antonio Freeman catch vid is dead.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Improbable-catch-by-Packer-Antonio-Freeman

In about 40 hours I can fix your dead Colbert video with the video from mine:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Colbert-Report-Who-The-Fk-Is-Sarah-Palin-Aug-29-2008

Unfortunately you can't fix it because you're not a gold star member, so just remind me in 40 hours to fix it for you. In case you're wondering why I have to wait that long, it's because all videos that are declared * dead must wait 48 hours before they go into the Dead Pool. Once there, anyone can fix them. Until then we simply have to wait. Sorry.

Anyway, just remind me in about 40 hours and I'll be happy to fix it for you.

http://www.neatorama.com/2006/08/28/clumsy-reporter-jenga-tower-hilarity/

Check that out, it's sorta become a ritual for him.

In reply to this comment by rychan:
Where in that page did he acknowledge that it was staged? I'm not doubting that it is, but I couldn't find it.

Its not dead It works fine

In reply to this comment by rychan:
*dead

Ta!

In reply to this comment by rychan:
In reply to this comment by calvados:
airdate?

This past Thursday, I think. 6/19/2008