They're able to keep it quiet because methane is invisible. Or it was, until now. Good on the EDF for capturing and releasing this footage.

Politically, maybe yes. Geographically, not so much. (I actually had thought they were closer together, but I still say it's the same region).

Of course, some people are more sensitive than others. I thought it was 'close' in the sense that it shows people almost touching an airplane in flight, which is insanely dangerous to all involved, shortly after another airplane went down, an act which is CLAIMED by terrorists to have been a terrorist act.

I thought the idea of small, private, radar invisible, personal 'aircraft' flying so incredibly close to an airliner, released right after an airliner crashed under suspicious circumstances was ill advised.
In fact, I think it's ill advised to show something like that even if there had not been a crash.
With a different title, this could have been a terrorist recruiting film showing the next level of attacks they're considering. Keep in mind that one can make (with enough technical knowledge) or purchase a set of 'wings' with no oversight, and once in the air the pilot is nearly invisible. Using them to fly right up to within touching distance of large airliners is not an idea I would have intentionally put in anyone's minds.

@newtboy
@Lawdeedaw

you two are adorable.like an old couple that should have divorced decades ago but were unwilling to share the pet dog.

the arguments i see playing out here are one of distinctions,but what are we basing those distinction on?
well,Lawdeedaw has addressed that point and i happen to agree with him.

if you find an abuse of power cop video,where someone is shot or beaten to death acceptable.then you must also find this video acceptable,because they are both using the exact same metric.

that being said,i feel newtboy brings up a good point:context,meaning and ultimately the REASON for posting a video where someone dies.

i think i understand lawdeedaws intent on posting.to reveal the cultural hypocrisy we have in regards to homeless people.how they are invisible,disregarded and disenfranchised.that even though we cringe at having to see homeless people,nevermind interact with them.they are still human and can have just as much courage and moral integrity as any one of us,even though they are discarded and invisible.even though there is much hand-wringing and empty-worded rhetoric,disguised as compassion,making us have the feel-goods while we do nothing.

they are human and this mans humanity and sacrifice can be beautiful to behold.

but where is the context?
take away lawdeedaws poetic understanding...what is happening here,besides a man getting shot and the gunman riddled with bullets?

so newtboy brings up a good point.
so allow me to add some much needed context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-man-saving-hostage-victim_55f06cdbe4b093be51bd1940

Some were... okay, but some were... huh?

Create an invisible triangle? Really?

Flip the eyes and mouth over and it will look weird... ohhhh kay...?

When "wow" flips horizontally it still says "wow." Wow, quite a revelation.

This could only have been created for children. That's the only thing I can imagine.

They are all wrong anyway, she was clearly the victim of an Alien mind ray!

The invisible UFO following her car is a dead giveaway. (Seriously Eric I'm surprised you didn't notice that yourself!)

It's almost like none of you have even heard of the Quagaar Imperium..........

Who even wears a watch when you can wear an invisible arm mesh which displays the time AND all of your bodies vital statistics at will. Not even a fashion statement. Sciency magic.

There were a lot of different tricks in there. A part of me really wonders if the mat on the table is a "printer/scanner" and that "marker" is extremely important. There may be a time-released chemical that helps all of this go down (meanwhile he may actually have a small printer on his body somewhere). When the smoke appears that is when the "card" is doing it's chemical thing (as you could smother one card with this chemical making it fully black, but then the printer could change the chemical pattern again as it is scanned and therefore reset the card with the other signature...).

The truth is, I have no idea how it was done, but I think what he is wearing (and possibly what is underneath--not to mention the pockets that are very hard to determine their location or size), possible chemical reactions used in a few different ways, a slim printer, and a slim scanner. Plus all of the sleight of hand tricks you did or did not catch...

If true, he used some fairly complicated technological prowess, besides his agility to get this done. But, for ages untold the creations made and used by magicians are just as important sometimes as the act.

This would also be THE perfect trick to give Penn & Teller the slip, as they may have never ran across anything like this (I've run into tech that could easily do lots of this--scanner through things, etc; it just depends on what is in that pen exactly...think of it kind of like invisible ink, but it need not stay that way and it more than likely can be made to "dissolve" as some sort of inert gas).

Everything was done here flawlessly, even the music feed into the act making it harder to catch.

Phew, that is long enough and I may only have 50% or so right on this one.

Invisible Inc didn't always include the rewind mechanic and I don't think it was actually a planned feature. Later iterations probably balanced the game more around it, but I still think it is kinda amazing how well it works given it wasn't in the game until relatively late into development.

I'd actually very much like the game to penalise you for not using rewind. Or rather I'd like the game to be balanced with assumption you will use it. I like that rewind creates a nice middle ground between quick save scumming and iron mode. I think it allows for a more challenging game in other respects and that doesn't feel frustrating when a miss click puts your main girl in open ground surrounded by cyberdisks (especially when the UI was pretty bad when it came to different elevations...). It smooths the transition from too easy to too hard.

That said, there are a number of changes from Enemy Unknown that I'd like to have more priority. Borrowing from Invisible Inc again, the ever raising alarm level in that creates a sense of urgency that I never felt in XCOM, even in the bomb missions and with the meld resource. I never lost a soldier because I forced them to take an incredible risk for the sake of the mission, I really only lost people because an unlucky shot dinked them in head across the map when they were in heavy cover. It looks like they are perhaps addressing urgency with the threat of reinforcements, which is cool. The other frustration I had with XCOM:EU/EW is that it always seemed to punish scouting. You'd effectively "wake up" the aliens by finding them which really disincentivised spreading out to cover more ground. It was simply safer to move as ball and let the enemies run into you (with the possible exception of the terror missions). it looks like they might be addressing that by making you the insurgent force with ambush tactics etc.

So yeah. I'm hyped.

I never played the original old school X COM, but I played all of Enemy Unknown on Ironman, and I have mixed feelings about a rewind system.

First, I think ironman really adds to the experience of X COM. There's a genuine sense of loss when one of your best troops dies.

I wouldn't mind an option for a rewind system, by with one caveat.
Invisible Inc. is clearly designed with the rewind system in mind (and it's a great game). But I'd still like to play X COM without the rewind without the game penalising me for it, i.e. the games get easier with it rather than harder without it.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining that very well.

Yeah, I hope this was a pretty heavily scripted encounter to show things off rather than a representation of actual gameplay.

I'd really love to see a mechanic similar to the rewind from Invisible Inc. Purists would probably hate it, but I think turning what is basically save scumming into a limited resource does a lot to smooth out the dice rolls. I think it would be cool to have to agonize over whether you should burn a rewind to try and save that rookie or save it for a more valuable veteran.

Make no mistake, these people are dangerous,,,they think they have an invisible friend,,and if he says to stone you,,they will..

This is really good. Anything that humanizes criminals, instead of treating them like filth or invisible ghosts is a good thing, and a step in the right direction towards rehabilitation.

I am curious about something though. I wonder if creating this environment of humor and fun has some impact on violence between inmates in the jail where he performed (even if temporary).

I swear to the god i don't believe in, Bob. You have the mental capacity of a 6 year old.

"Update, 2:05 p.m. – Buzzfeed News spoke to Brandon Brooks, who uploaded the video to Youtube. “I think a bunch of white parents were angry that a bunch of black kids who don’t live in the neighborhood were in the pool,” he said. “Everyone who was getting put on the ground was black, Mexican, Arabic,” he said.

“[The cop] didn’t even look at me. It was kind of like I was invisible.” Brooks is white."

I'll even concede the whole "cops needed to gain control of the situation"

Tho.. literally the only people handcuffed on the ground were black kids.

Why are you pretending like cops aren't racist, @lantern53

Explain why - even tho, as you stated @bobknight33, the cops didn't know WHO was fighting white, black or indifferent - only black kids where chased, thrown to the grown and handcuffed?

Did democrats brutalize and arrest them?
I thought dems love suckin' up to the black vote.
So.. ?

Care to explain? Either of you?

As I said, assuming reality is real is an assumption we all must make to be sane....it is an ASSUMPTION, but a necessary one without which we live in a fluid fantasy. That is rational enough for me, as the alternative means everything is fantasy and meaningless anyway, so being mistaken about it would mean nothing...to no one, leaving 'belief' in reality the only rational choice.
I see your world view as rigid because it's based in a rigid, unchanging document, while mine is based on examination and re-examination of 'reality'.
No, I don't believe in absolute "truth". I believe in :

RULE#5-"TRUTH" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person. You don't need to know the 'TRUTH" in order to not lie.

I get that it's confusing for me to say -'there are absolutely no absolutes', but there you go, I said it. Kind of like how I'm intolerant of intolerance. ;-)
I take the position...'I don't know, but it seems most likely by far that.....'...about everything. Being a scientist means you never 'know' anything for certain...as that denies you the ability to change your position when you're 'knowledge' is shown to be incorrect. Certitude is for theology, not science.
Only 'he' knows what 'proof' would be, and he has not shown it. I don't know how many times I must repeat that. Beauty is not proof, awe is not proof, mystery is not proof, words are not proof, other people's belief is not proof. Only proof is proof, and I'm waiting, but not holding my breath. Ball's in 'his' invisible court.
Yes, I am open to knowing the 'truth' (if you must put it that way), and I am also open to accepting I have been wrong, but only if I'm convinced, not just because someone said so.
If we are created for good works, something went terribly wrong somewhere. ;-)