What that means is that neurons fire at a certain rate to transmit data, communicate, change state, whatever. The neruon paths fire in the tens of Hz or slower, so maybe the visual cortex or visual nerve cells have a certain frequency they fire at and if you in an environment with EM or visual stimuli that is at certain frequencies, it makes sense this could have impact on what you "see", much like modulating and to create FM communication. Though you might call it more of a pulse stream shift keying.


>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^Farhad2000:
I read some shit a while back that said the reason we experience paranormal events in certain environs is because of resonance factors that resonate with the same frequency as our eyes thus creating peripheral visions.
Seem interesting as a theory.

That's not a theory. A theory has to contain an actual explanation of the cause of the phenomena. What you gave is pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
Our eyes resonate? WTF does that even mean?

[redacted]

Actually, I can't imagine they make enough volume of this component to do any statistically significant testing.

And BP is absolutely responsible for this disaster, good intentions or no. The final manufacturer or project owner has to take responsibility to ensure the quality of the components, parts, and modules that he buys. Especially since the risks are so high. The fact that they didn't put this fail safe on their rig looks very much like a financially driven decision.

But even if they did everything they could, it's still their fault. BP, and other oil companies, choose to gamble not only with their investors, but with our planet. And that is not hyperbole, as we now see. All of BP's money will not fix this disaster. They owe humanity a huge debt.

Also, I am sure that this has happened before with BP or others in the same business; I hope some journo is digging for other occurrences so we know the full score.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^enoch:
it was not a small random chance.
thats what BP would LOVE for you to view this disaster but in reality it was negligence and greed.
40 billion in profits last year and BP tried to save 500k.fuck BP in the ass with a razor blade dildo.
the reason why you have not seen this type of disaster in other developed countries is due to the fact they impose incredibly strict safety measures with hefty fines attached if not adhered to.
thanks to haliburton and its influence in american legislature no such requirements here in the states.
exxons valdez was tragic but that was an tanker and with that comes risk.THIS could have been avoided from the beginning all the way to a few days prior.
so while i would tend to agree with your assertion "accidents happen" not in this case..NOT ONE BIT..this could have and SHOULD have been avoided but..profit above all else right??
now you watch as BP will use its political might to squirm out of this disaster which will be felt for the next twenty years.
whole communities wiped out.eco-systems destroyed to a point they may never recover.
accidents happen right? what would you say if you understood this could have been avoided?
would you still be so flip?
because i know if i run into a BP executive i am kicking him in the balls.

You seem pretty confident. Prove it wasn't a small chance. Prove they don't go through an abundance of safety regulations. It's easy to hop on the hate boat when something bad happens, but do you really think that these companies are that stupid? Yes, they'll get a slightly larger profit if they cut some corners, but they weigh that against something like this happening and just reinforce standards. Crews go through extensive safety training. The equipment used out there is tested before deployment. To think otherwise is ignorant. It pisses me off even more than you seem to place all of the blame on BP. I'll say it once and I'll say it again: BP didn't manufacture that blow-out preventor. We don't know all of the details yet, but do you really think they would purposely put a faulty preventor out in a deep-ocean well?

Also, my rebuttal for it NOT being small, random chance. Basic statistics. The company that produced the BOP in question probably ran simple random samples on their final products. A sample taken from a large batch of BOP probably tested fine, even though this one, and possible many others, was able to get through their testing, due to small, and random chance.

Yes, this.

It's a great idea that's in the works, but that has practical issues to overcome before it's implementable on a large scale. However, without doing the legwork to understand the issues, it's easy to say, "Look how great it works in the bowl, let's do it nownownow!!"

>> ^modulous:

It might be worth noting that these guys haven't stumbled upon a radically amazing idea. Using sorbents for oil spills is a long standing technique. Seeking low cost, environmentally friendly and easily deployed sorbents is an active research area.
Further - using hay as a sorbent is not unique either. It is so well established that sometimes highschool students perform a similar experiment as shown in the video above. There are several papers about its efficacy, the effects of layering, cleanup, recycling etc:
Availability of barley straw application on oil spill clean up
Investigation of Oleophilic Nature of Straw Sorbent Conditioned in Water

Tags for this video have been changed from 'electronics, modulating, pulse, width, trance, neat' to 'electronics, modulating, pulse, width, trance, neat, tiesto, adiago for strings' - edited by enoch

wow, that's some awesome imagineering.
Manhattan also needs apartments like this.
It's be awesome if he got hired by Ikea and they created the whole line of wall-modules to build one for yourself.

Oh no! It's spreading, I'm seeing stars and crescents everywhere!
http://www.nasa.gov/templateimages/redesign/modules/header/header_logo.gif

>> ^Farhad2000:

Americans will invent it?
Hahahahah!


Why is that funny?
Some good ones, in chronological order:
Suspension Bridge,Refrigeration,Morse code
Steam Shovel, Vulcanized Rubber, Motorcycle,
Phonograph, Cash Register, Solar Cell,
Photographic Film, Skyscrapers, Radio,
Zipper, Tractor, FINALLY coming to the 20th century...
Air conditioning, Airplane, AC plugs and sockets,
Supermarket, Liquid Fuel Rocket, Frozen Food,
Particle Accelerators, FM, Digital Computer
, Microwave Oven, Transistor,
Mobile Phone, Supersonic Aircraft, Video Games,
Cable TV, CPR, HDD,
Industrial Robots, Videotape, LASER,
Carbon Fiber, Weather Satellites, GPS,
Heart Transplant, Cordless Phones, CDs,
Airbags, Lunar Module, WAN, PCs,
Microprocessors, Floppy Disks, Email,
Digital Cameras, Ethernet, MRI,
BBS, Internet (not WWW), Space Telescope,
DVRs, Composite Aircraft...whew that was fun. Thanks for egging me on, troll, and if you use any of the above, thank an American!

Great video.

But that modulation in the music about the 3:05 mark was painful.

Wow -- each of the different modes was quite cool. Makes me wonder what other visual modules could be programmed in!

Lunar Module: http://www.videosift.com/video/Moon-Machines-Lunar-Module-1-5

Lunar Module: http://www.videosift.com/video/Moon-Machines-Lunar-Module-1-5

Lunar Module: http://www.videosift.com/video/Moon-Machines-Lunar-Module-1-5

Lunar Module: http://www.videosift.com/video/Moon-Machines-Lunar-Module-1-5

>> ^Almanildo:
I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought that your statement that "we can't presently percieve" something meant that we might be able to percieve it in the future. But then I don't see your point about how today's non-physical is tomorrow's physical. If we can percieve it, it's physical. If we in principle can't percieve it, I argue that it's irrelevant, because it can't affect our bodies.
I need to make sure I know the direction the argument is coming from, because I'm not sure I'm reading the same message you intended to convey.



There are many things we know to exist that we technically can't perceive. Everything out of range of our sensory organs has to be modulated into an in-range format to be perceivable. Some of these things were only discovered once the means of modulation were invented, and others were postulated to exist before eventually being proven.
Tiny living creatures crawling under my fingernails? Absurd!
Beams of "invisible light" that can pass through my body? Preposterous!

In terms of "today's non-physical is tomorrow's physical", I believe what he means is that the current physical model is incomplete. Eventually, the model will be more complete. Everything that's in the revised model that wasn't in the old model represents that progression.

To answer a question you'd asked earlier, a couple of times - understanding that there's something present (and arguably perceivable) that isn't accounted for by the current physical model serves the purpose of reminding us that we're not done yet. Reminding us that there's a significant gap between what we already "know" and what we know is left to learn. That we cannot be content with the model we've got because it's missing some seemingly very critical parts.