I think at some points the maps overlap each other. This is actually used in some speedruns of the game where you can destroy boxes containing med packs on one map and have them appear on the next map. Also, elevators are weird. Oh, and you'd probably run into a lot of invisible walls that extend much further out than the visible parts of the maps they belong to.

I like how this portrays Youtube as an invisible, naturally occurring resource for the people, when it actually, like Facebook, is just a megacorporation that has profited immensely from copyright infringement, or whatever euphemism you want to slap on it.

Wow. I'm invisible!

I see no reason it couldn't be done right now.

Once you have the dancers position the rendering is pretty trivial.

Getting the dancers position with a Kinect is certainly doable... I'm not sure how well the Kinect would cope with multiple people in that lighting environment, but you could certainly rig the dancers with invisible IR emitters and track that.

It's simply a matter of cost.

edit: technical info on how it was actually done
http://vezerapp.hu/blog/project-showcase-pixel/

Holy crap my apologies. The tag's practically invisible.

I've never seen a car in my life that hides the door to invisibility? Could she not have just spent a few moments looking for a fairly clear outlined cut-out.

I feel like she knew where it was but was getting disorientated with how the car was positioned, as she kept altering her frame of reference. I'd like to believe this more than not being able to see the door.

There is a demonstrated bias towards equity investment domestically which is probably what Adam Smith was talking about, which is rather different to tax havens and global supply chains which would not have been as feasible back in the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_bias_puzzle

Chomsky is also not really correct as Adam Smith does use it in the more general sense that it is referred to today in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. That it took me a couple of minutes to contradict this video with wikipedia does not bode well for the fact checking of TYT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Other_uses_of_the_phrase_by_Smith

I think it's also worth pointing out that Smith's position wasn't that of unrestrained market activity. The general principle of the invisible hand is sound if you accept that point. As far as his actual position on the role of government, it's open to interpretation. It's also worth pointing out that you can't expect a concept to not need some adjustment after 250 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#As_a_symbol_of_free_market_economics

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming.

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

At this point, you would have to either monumentally stupid or willfully ignorant to believe in it.

Hey Newtboy,

God provided four major lines of evidence so that you would know that He exists. The first is Creation itself:

Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

His existence is so evident from the Creation that He considers that people are without excuse for their unbelief.

A quick science fact for you:

The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, and the Sun is 400 times farther away from the Moon. This is the reason they appear to be the same size in the sky. The Moon is also receding from the Earth at a few centimeters at year. This would mean it is only a “coincidence” that we happen to live at a time that the Sun and Moon have an exact correspondence in the sky, making solar eclipses possible. Yet, the scripture says God created the Sun and the Moon for signs and seasons, for days and years. The amount of “coincidences” really adds up to an absurdity when you study the conditions necessary for us to be here. You can find a good study on that here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0

The other lines of evidence are your conscience, the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and bible prophecy. I understand, perhaps, where you’re coming from. It very much has to do with what your worldview is. If you start apriori with the idea that there is no supernatural and no divine being, you won’t recognize the evidence right in front of your face. You will instead embrace alternative explanations for the origins of life which appear to be pragmatic but start with a greater amount of faith required than a belief in an all powerful Creator God.

when one of your first posts on this site is admitting that you don't give a shit about this community and that you admit that your sole purpose here is to push your Jesus agenda on the site, that tends to not win you too many friends.

Virtually everyone on this site has multiple facets to their personalty, like different things, talk about different subjects, do different things....

....whereas you are completely, utterly, fanatically focused on one...and one subject only. That tends to not win you any friends here.

...when your response to every question is to quote the bible instead of use any rational discourse. That tends to not win you any friends here.

in other words, you dug your own grave. You brought it on yourself. You've made poor decisions

you can spin it into your own persecution fantasy as you have before, but that's between you and your psychiatrist or your invisible sky daddy

But as @ChaosEngine has pointed out, since no punishments or administrative actions have happened. all the whining and persecution fantasies are just that.

It's getting to the point where I can't blame the inmates anymore for taking over the asylum when the warden is asleep at the wheel and refuses to enforce their own rules.

Once again, we see another user blatantly violate the rules....and nothing happens which proves my earlier point.

There have been rumblings for a long while now that the sift is in dire straits and we're seeing the fall of rome here. In this thread alone, we've had yet another user get fed up and abandon the sinking ship.

As for why the video itself isn't getting more attention. There are numerous sifts where the discussion has evolved far beyond the original video and took on a life of it's own. If you were an actual member of this community instead of a Bible Quote Robot, you would know that.

There are lots of things about this site you probably don't know because you've decided to be a One Note Charlie

I think the signal must have been jammed. That's probably why it didn't go off until the convoy passed. There was a big article in Wired about it, pretty interesting:

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/iraqs-invisible-war/all/

I think the first 5 minutes was the most important part of the conversation. It's bigger than both men and he's got a point. The burden of proof in "journalism" has been on a downward trend for the last 10-20 years and sites like Salon have decided to just throw it out the window outright.

What they've discovered is that spreading "based on a true story" style journalism is much more profitable than traditional journalism and their (relatively) new and growing religion allows them to do it without sin.

This religion is much more damaging than any popular, established religion in practice today. This religion doesn't need buildings or ordained practitioners. This religion creates its own propaganda as a side effect of its practice. Its worshipers can often hide in plain sight and subvert civilization for years without direct personal repercussions; in fact they are often rewarded for their behavior.

The religion is Objectivism, and its deity is "the invisible hand". When your morality is judged by your profit than you've undone a core pillar of civilization. The damage of all other practiced religions in the modern era pale in comparison.

The first five minutes of this video were the only part of this conversation that were relevant to the real challenges of our times.

Love Derren Brown. This was by far the tamest of anything I've ever seen of his. (By that I mean lacking any real excitement. I kept waiting for something big.)

I didn't care about the fake surgery stuff. Lame, but just making a point about how fake it is and trying to have something to excite the overly sensitive. Whatevs.

I imagine the fake contacting dead relatives thing was maybe using things like a lot of YouTubers have done and just searched for people on social media who share their profile publicly. Easy enough to find people who are tweeting/facebooking/instagramming about going to a Derren Brown show then searching through their past posts to dig up good dirt about people who passed. If that's not along the lines of what he did, then I'd really like to hear some possible alternate methods.

Really no idea about how he did the invisible "aeroplane" trick.

Loved the finale and really have no clue how that was done either.

And if he didn't somehow force the dice, either he really did memorize those books with his dickbrain (I bet the boys in school gave him that name for a different reason - teehee) or the guy was a stooge and lying about what he was reading. Why wasn't there a camera there to show what he was seeing in the books?

Pre-set Rubik's cubes? Whe didn't we get a look at them before he "solved" it and while solving it, why was his back away from the audience and cameras?

Fake beard?

Anyway, fuckit. Dude gets a lot of grief, but he's certainly not the worst entertainment-industry examples of young talent that can't handle the fame. I thought he handled that well enough, but mostly I credit him for actually explaining the situation pretty thoroughly (and assuming it's true, hilariously).

Anyone else see him in Necrophiliac? Certainly not near the best Von Trier film, but I'd argue it's the best Shia LaBeouf performance. Guy was nigh invisible in that, (thankfully, and again, to his credit).