I'm not afraid of heights, but I think doing this would scare me shitless. I've done a small amount of tower climbing (with a safety belt) for antenna repair. It took me a few minutes and massive force of will to convince my logical brain to overcome my "oh HELL no" instincts and plant my feet on the tower rung and lean back, let the safety belt catch me, and make repairs to part of an antenna that was probably 20-30 degrees past tower-vertical behind me. Trusting a rope enough to run and jump off that arch seems like a near-impossible extension of that for me...

They seemed to be enjoying themselves though, so upvote -- to each his own!

I wish my antenna made that sound.

I know I'm late to this story but I started pirating games because I hated putting the game CD/DVD in my DVDROM drive.

It sounds stupid but even after I purchased a number of games I would pirate them just because I didnt like swapping cds mid game, looking around for the cd when I wanted to play, and having discs get damaged and my investment lost.

That was in the past at least. Now I've done it because 1/2 or more of my games require an internet connection to play the single player campaign. I have family that lives out in the country with no internet to speak of (SHITTY dial up, srsly) and when we visit them it's for extended periods of time (2 weeks or so).

Without pirated versions of games I already own, I'd be left to playing with an asshole cat and watching antenna TV (no cable and no cell signals either).

Anybody else do this?

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Lasers, light, and the universe... 2012 will be amazing as predicted. I'm glad Obama couldn't stop all progress, despite his efforts... right QM?

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/more-evidence-found-for-quantum-physics-in-photosynthesis.ars

Quantum coherence in antenna-protein chlorophylls from green sulfur bacteria:

"A team led by Engel and Shaul Mukamel of the University of California, Irvine analyzed the fluctuation of lasers as they passed through antenna proteins. Depending on how they shifted, the researchers could track what happened inside.

They found a clear mathematical link between energy flows and fluctuations in chlorophyll coherence. The link was so clear it could be described in derivative sines and cosines, mathematical concepts taught in college trigonometry."

"The mounting evidence that quantum effects can be seen in natural systems when excited by lasers is compelling" - Greg Scholes, University of Toronto biophysicist

I think it is more likely not a string, but a small whip antenna connected to the pups pineal gland in his brain.

Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point. All these things are possible because the information is already present. You can invent new words because you already have a language. Likewise, if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form. What you're still dealing with is the chicken and the egg problem. You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins. Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it. The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I haven't conflated anything. You've simply misconstrued everything I've said because of your belief that RNA is simple, or could spontaneously evolve.

Really? You thought that putting those two words together like that would convince me that you are taking anybody else seriously?
>> ^shinyblurry:
You think your simulation demonstrates the creation of information which could lead to a system that creates cellular life.

No, Please re-read your claim, and my response. You claimed that Information comes Only from minds, I provide counter evidence, you assert that I was claiming something else. I claim that you are not listening, you provide evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:
such a system could never generate RNA of cellular life.

We have such a system, it's called the universe, and in it we find RNA. The universe does generate RNA, you and I are not in dispute on this point, only on the mechanism of that generation.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell. Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell.

That claim makes no sense.
To assert that something takes a particular amount of time requires a context of how wide spread the attempt is.
As an example I can not build a rocket to put people on the moon, this is impossible, I will not live long enough... None the less a large number of people, working in concert, with worse technology that we have access to did accomplish this task, it's possibility is a matter of scale.
In order to make an anthropic argument, I only need life to have happened once in all the space and time of the entire universe. Now I realize that you are just talking out your ass, that you have no numbers to back up your claims of probability, that your are simply making an argument from incredulity, but if you decide to try and cover your ass with some numbers realize we have about 100B years and 10⁸⁰ atoms to work with.
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no experiment which has demonstrated that RNA can spontaneously evolve and be capable of creating life, now or ever. There is also no experiment which shows life evolving from non-living matter.

There again with the nonsense phrase, trying to really hit it home that you really have no clue what you are arguing against?
RNA is a molecule, it's not magic, it does nothing but what chemistry would expect of it, and still, it generates information through mutation/selection. This is, again, evidence against your absurd initial position which your argument from incredulity can not address. Even if you question the source of the molecule, the mechanism is the same, RNA is not a god antenna, it's a molecule, that synthesizes information through a simple, well understood, physical process.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The information is what designed and built the simulation, and its structure generates different arrangements of that information based on certain preprogrammed variables which do not change. You are not making anything truly new, rather you are just shuffling things around.

And neither has anybody, and you never have, and I never will. We are all bounded by our universe, we can not create or destroy, only move and arrange. There is, as far as we can tell, never anything new, and to say that that is true of the simulation provides no information about how it may be different from the physical universe in which we live, it is only one more way in which it is similar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Such a simulation could never evolve on its own outside of programming.

Do you not get the concept of simulation? Nobody has claimed that the simulation is "real" only that it mimics, in a predictive way, certain aspects of the physical universe. Specifically it illustrates the compounding result of mutation/combination/selection, which is to synthesize information about the environment in a manner coded to best deal with that environment, a process, which you assert can not happen.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Just as DNA could never evolve on its own. The digital information it contains transcends its medium, just as a story transcends the paper and ink it is written on. Information only comes from minds, and that is what DNA code points to.

Your comparison is poor, paper and ink don't create words, DNA does. Understanding the information may require a "mind", whatever that means, but the information effecting and shaped by the physical world only requires mutation/selection, and we had that on this planet for billions of years before anybody realized there was any information in the system at all.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I haven't conflated anything. You've simply misconstrued everything I've said because of your belief that RNA is simple, or could spontaneously evolve.


Really? You thought that putting those two words together like that would convince me that you are taking anybody else seriously?

>> ^shinyblurry:

You think your simulation demonstrates the creation of information which could lead to a system that creates cellular life.


No, Please re-read your claim, and my response. You claimed that Information comes Only from minds, I provide counter evidence, you assert that I was claiming something else. I claim that you are not listening, you provide evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:

such a system could never generate RNA of cellular life.


We have such a system, it's called the universe, and in it we find RNA. The universe does generate RNA, you and I are not in dispute on this point, only on the mechanism of that generation.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell. Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell.


That claim makes no sense.

To assert that something takes a particular amount of time requires a context of how wide spread the attempt is.

As an example I can not build a rocket to put people on the moon, this is impossible, I will not live long enough... None the less a large number of people, working in concert, with worse technology that we have access to did accomplish this task, it's possibility is a matter of scale.

In order to make an anthropic argument, I only need life to have happened once in all the space and time of the entire universe. Now I realize that you are just talking out your ass, that you have no numbers to back up your claims of probability, that your are simply making an argument from incredulity, but if you decide to try and cover your ass with some numbers realize we have about 100B years and 10⁸⁰ atoms to work with.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no experiment which has demonstrated that RNA can spontaneously evolve and be capable of creating life, now or ever. There is also no experiment which shows life evolving from non-living matter.


There again with the nonsense phrase, trying to really hit it home that you really have no clue what you are arguing against?

RNA is a molecule, it's not magic, it does nothing but what chemistry would expect of it, and still, it generates information through mutation/selection. This is, again, evidence against your absurd initial position which your argument from incredulity can not address. Even if you question the source of the molecule, the mechanism is the same, RNA is not a god antenna, it's a molecule, that synthesizes information through a simple, well understood, physical process.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The information is what designed and built the simulation, and its structure generates different arrangements of that information based on certain preprogrammed variables which do not change. You are not making anything truly new, rather you are just shuffling things around.


And neither has anybody, and you never have, and I never will. We are all bounded by our universe, we can not create or destroy, only move and arrange. There is, as far as we can tell, never anything new, and to say that that is true of the simulation provides no information about how it may be different from the physical universe in which we live, it is only one more way in which it is similar.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Such a simulation could never evolve on its own outside of programming.


Do you not get the concept of simulation? Nobody has claimed that the simulation is "real" only that it mimics, in a predictive way, certain aspects of the physical universe. Specifically it illustrates the compounding result of mutation/combination/selection, which is to synthesize information about the environment in a manner coded to best deal with that environment, a process, which you assert can not happen.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Just as DNA could never evolve on its own. The digital information it contains transcends its medium, just as a story transcends the paper and ink it is written on. Information only comes from minds, and that is what DNA code points to.


Your comparison is poor, paper and ink don't create words, DNA does. Understanding the information may require a "mind", whatever that means, but the information effecting and shaped by the physical world only requires mutation/selection, and we had that on this planet for billions of years before anybody realized there was any information in the system at all.

(We, the undersigned, put forth his name)

Whereas Reggie Leach was born and played
Minor hockey back in my home town
The Rifle fired his first five hundred here
Slapped his way into the NHL

(We, the undersigned, put forth his name)

Whereas some of us weren't always fair
To the Native kid on borrowed skates
Chippy Goolies and Ukrainians
In the corners with our elbows up

(We, the undersigned, put forth his name)

Whereas Reggie on a playoff run
Could make a dad go buy that new TV
Put his youngest by the window; place
The split antenna in her tiny hands

(We, the undersigned, put forth his name)

Whereas photos from the old Tribune
Of Reggie smiling with the Stanley Cup
Curled their corners, dropped off bedroom walls
Left a square of where they used to be

(We, the undersigned, put forth his name
To the Hockey Hall of Fame
We, the undersigned, put forth his name
To the Hockey Hall of Fame - therefore,
We, the undersigned, put forth his name
To the Hockey Hall of Fame)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Digital, television, dtv, psa, grandma, conversion, antenna' to 'Digital, television, dtv, psa, grandma, conversion, antenna, analog' - edited by doogle

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Digital, television, dtv, psa, grandma, conversion' to 'Digital, television, dtv, psa, grandma, conversion, antenna' - edited by doogle

They look a bit like lobsters, don't they? Makes me realize why some people regard consuming lobster to be equivalent to eating giant bugs, especially when you think about their little black eyeballs and bug-like antennae, etc.

I watched WNBC for years growing up 100 miles north of NYC. All we got were 3 NYC channels those days, WNBC along with CBS and WNEW channel 5. We bought an antenna rotator to point towards Connecticut to get channel 3 from New Haven but it was pretty weak.

Thanks for posting this.

>> ^therealblankman:

If you look closely you can see the streams of molten metal from the previously implanted explosives and thermite. Also note that the tower collapses faster than the force of gravity, leading to the inescapable conclusion that evil space aliens created a singularity that sucked the antennae into oblivion.


Operation Martian Freedom to begin within 3 months

>> ^bareboards2:

@ant have you seen this yet? You rule!! Bravery! Commitment! Loyalty!
True ant qualities.


But he could had used his stinger and mandibles! Were are his antennae and wings?