Way too short

@SDGundamX

Some people just have more of a bleeding heart than others.

My heart does not bleed for any given human being who happens to get hurt regardless of the circumstances.

Life is too short to spend time concerning myself with the well-being of people who themselves have no concern for their own well-being.

Once upon a time, National Geographic was serious, educational, and interesting. Now they find the need to be all "EXTREME" with people like this guy pandering to the audience, because clearly the general public is too stupid and has too short an attention span to actually listen to the stuff.

And yet, somehow we can tolerate David Attenborough's completely dry and boringly British delivery.

[EDIT]Oh, and remember the old theme song? Now THAT was a theme song!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF7FeNjNjHk

That was too short.

People are waaaay too precious about weddings. It's supposed to be a fun day of celebration, stop worrying about everything being "perfect" (hint: it's never going to be perfect) and enjoy yourselves.

My brother wore the wrong suit at my wedding (he was best man and accidentally put on a suit too short for him). He looked ridiculous and my wife still cracks up whenever she sees the photos.

Our society promotes that women should look good and inevitably everyone will get old and wrinkly. So it seems like this 'material' is fairly easy to come up with. But that would be true with almost everyone. Big feet, nose, too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, funny sounding, only one elbow... Everybody's got something. Maybe it's just that it cuts across a wider segment of the population.

Your video, A 767-ER airliner takes off from a runway 1/3 too short!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

this is way too short

Just an educated guess but I suspect it's a tiny correction for wind drift which has been exaggerated by the camera angle.

The effects I think your referring to are called the "Coriolis" effect and "Gyro drift" and while they would have a similar effect this is seems like far too short of a range for them to come into play even at the relatively low velocity of that shell. That said its possible that with such a big round like that sabot "gyro drift" and maybe some sort of torque effect from leaving the barrel might be at work...

Gyro drift is due to the fact that the spinning bullet/shell starts to be pulled out of line by gravity causing the originally stable oscillation to slowly get knocked out of whack dragging the nose of the round out of line causing the round to pull slightly towards the direction it's spinning (though with a stable modern round this is very very subtle and only really comes into play at at least 1-2mile plus ranges).

The Coriolis effect is due to the fact that the earth itself is spinning. Over very long ranges the earth itself moves relative to the path of the round and so for 1-2mile plus shots one may need to compensate depending on the velocity and ballistic properties of the round. (this is why snipers tend to operate as a team because the maths and reference material necessary to account for all this plus standard bullet drop, variable wind conditions, atmospherics etc. etc. as well as maintaining situational awareness is a big ask for one person.)

Like I said though it seems unlikely they would have such a pronounced effect at such a relatively short range, the camera angle is definitely exaggerating what ever is going on there.


EDIT: I just watched it again, pretty sure it's just the camera angle (camera is slightly off to the left) I think the shell looks like it's actually travelling dead straight.

I love gervais, but i found that last line slightly telling. I know it was a joke, but maybe that is partly why the characters in life's too short were so so bad and even the ones in derek are just slightly too pronounced. Whereas from extras and the original office, the natural characters and conversations went to making those shows classic.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Too Short - Gettin' It. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Too short!

No, not him.. the routine.

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Too short in my opinion, but still worthy of a *quality.

Thanks for posting

They did say this is the shortest one, but also that:

There will be longer episodes, too, but the idea is to provide condensed info and not to overload the clips.

Супер! Ждем продолжения