https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight

Dogfighting first appeared during World War I, shortly after the invention of the airplane. Until at least 1992, it was a component in every major war, despite beliefs after World War II that increasingly greater speeds and longer range weapons would make dogfighting obsolete.

In the Gulf War of 1990–91, dogfighting once again proved its usefulness when the Coalition Air Force had to face off against the Iraqi Air Force, which at the time was the fifth largest in the world. Many dogfights occurred during the short conflict, often involving many planes. By the end of January, 1991, the term "furball" became a popular word to describe the hectic situation of many dogfights, occurring at the same time within the same relatively small airspace. Oh, fun fact, most of those planes 'dogfighting' in that 'relatively small airspace' were F15's...

But you can ignore that if you want. I mean, ACM schools that teach dogfighting even today probably don't exist...

I linked earlier the marine test that certified the F35 even though it failed the test pretty much completely. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

After reading all the praise for her performance, I was extremely unimpressed when I finally saw this video last night.

Her performance (esp the singing) is mediocre at best and as hectic as this hodgepodge "medley" of his greatest hits.

I think he would have deserved better.

Incredible. Unbelievable.

These last 9 years have flown by. VideoSift feels like it's always been a part of my life.

Even though my life is crazy hectic now with work and two kids, I still stop by throughout the day every day, and I'm deeply, madly in love with everyone else who does the same.

...

Now stop gawking and make out with me already would ya.

Happy Siftiversary!

Hectic! Very interesting scene, confirming what you always suspect in the books and the TV show. Glad it was deleted however, i think removing the doubt of Pycelle's deception lessens the depth of the council.

*Quality!

I used to do this for a news show. Not as many cameras or unscripted elements there, but it did get quite hectic in that control room at times. Loved every second of it!

Absolutely, but we also see the same cars cutting in front of the camera over and over again. I think they paid some locals to make the street seem more hectic than it would have otherwise been.

hehe..i just left a private message for you @messenger then came here to @HadouKen24 has packaged things very nicely.

he is far more versed in these matters than i and has a spartan,yet succinct way in conveying his ideas.

I..on the other hand,am a ramblomatic confuse-a-thon.
now back to the never ending hecticness i have been experiencing of late.

cheers you two!

>> ^SFOGuy:

Sometimes I admit to wondering: do these people have parents? I mean, people who have the normal level of fear response to seeing someone they care about finding new and interesting ways to potentially hurt themselves? I wonder that about the Russian high tower/building videos too...
Not to say it isn't impressive and artful; just wonder.


There was a short series of programs here in the UK about Danny Macaskill, looking at how he deals with the fear/adrenaline of these type of stunts. They took him to meet other daredevil types and looked at his response to the risks. They also interviewed his parents. His dad is very risk averse, he doesn't like anything his son does, but his mother encouraged him to take risks from a very early age. The result is a mature person with a huge understanding of risk. He really knows his limits and what is and isn't possible.

If you bring up a child without exposing them to risk they never learn how to deal with or understand risk. When presented with a situation which is risky they don't know which decisions to make and that's when it all goes really badly wrong.

One of the other people they interviewed in the series was a specialist action sequence director. He works all the time with stunt men and women, people who do things that look really dangerous to normal people. He said they're the least likely of anyone to do anything dangerous. These things look dangerous to us because we don't know how we would deal with the situation. But to a trained stunt person, it's not that dangerous at all. He said they were the most likely people to back away from a danger. They don't look to do dangerous things, but rather they enjoy mastering the risks, so it's not dangerous.

They talked about a sequence where Danny rode down some steps in an underground station (I say rode down, what I mean is hurled himself and the bike down in unimaginably hectic ways!). They asked him what he was thinking when they were planing the shoot and he talked about all the potential risks he could see. Would his bike fit through the gap between the handrails if he did a twist in the jump? Would he hit his head on a step in the ceiling? Would he have enough space to slow down and so on. You'd think seeing the end shots that he went along looking for dangerous things to do where as he actually did the exact opposite.

As for the Russian crane climbers, I suspect there's a little more vodka involved than perhaps there should be...

This one is definitely much better than the NBC song one. Good melody and not as blinding and hectic.

MvsC is really a hectic fighter. SF3/4 is just the right pace, with the only thing missing imo is air blocking, something they have kept away from sf4 despite being one of my fav things in zero 3.

Oh, I never meant to imply that it was easy. I've had to build a cpu twice, once for Computer Architecture and once for Digital Electronics. One was entirely simulated and one was loaded onto an FPGA (a programmable chip). Using software like Xilinx ISE or Altera, you can simulate the necessary logic gates to build and test the electronics, then "install" it to an FPGA. It took us about 2-3 weeks to do it, but it was definitely a hectic and stressful few weeks. What he probably did was simulate the setup and then build it to a couple of breadboards (which I can see there in the videos) using some component chips. (Here's a list of some on wikipedia.)

Now he also did a graphics module, which is not necessarily harder, but is built quite differently, so I estimate that took another month or so to figure out. Once those two major components are done, the rest of it is pretty easy to hook together, and all that's left is putting together the software.

So yeah, assuming he was doing this in his spare time, a year sounds about right. It just takes dedication and the willingness to learn the process. Nice to see a teenager willing to take the time to do it, and the results are testament to that.
>> ^marinara:

really? I agree, it's not a theoretical/conceptual feat. It's an engineering/fabrication feat. But, I can't ever use the word "easy" to describe what this teenager did.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.
In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.
And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.
Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.
And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.
But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?
It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.
If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.
I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.
Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.


I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.

One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.

In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.

And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.

Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.

And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.

But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?

It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.

If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.

I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.

Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.

Right back at you
Been a hectic weekend with the inlaws - it's good to be back at work - maybe now I'll get some rest

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Happy Easter.

I have so many issues with this video, I don't think I'll be able to recall all of them to write down. I'll preface all of this by saying that I'm an avid poker player and during my senior year of college ('04-'05) & the year after I graduated, online poker was my sole source of income. I now make trips to AC from NYC when my hectic work/social schedule allows.

1 - You think US casinos didn't want in on online gambling from jump street? Wrong. This is a HUGE industry. Casinos aren't the RIAA; they're willing to adapt to new sources of revenue & have wanted in since online gambling started started gaining traction in the US. I don't know what happened recently with Caesar's, but I assure you that casinos have been lobbying for a long time to get a piece of the action. There have been stories for at least the last 7 years about US casinos wanting to operate online gambling sites.

2 - I'm pretty sure that online gambling is not actually illegal. What's illegal is running an online gambling site. Very important distinction. What's also illegal is US financial institutions transferring money to gambling sites. None of this has any bearing on the players. If you can manage to get money to a site, you haven't broken any laws, the bank or credit card company has. This too is a very important distinction from "online gambling is illegal." Online gambling isn't illegal. Operating an online gambling site in the US is illegal. A bank giving money to an offshore site is illegal (this law was only passed ~4 years ago). But gambling online is not illegal.

3 - Are TYT really arguing that gambling should be legal everywhere and that antigambling legislature is a purely moral issue? This is sort of ridiculous. It's just good sense. I believe poker rooms should be legalized nationwide, but I don't agree that all gambling should be. Providing every member of the population the opportunity to play the slots after a hard day of work is a very, very bad idea. Not because the bible says it's wrong, but just from an economic standpoint. They seem to be arguing that the gov't disallowing online gambling is depriving people of their rights, as if gambling isn't illegal almost everywhere in the US. Very weak & (IMO) misguided argument here.

4 - One thing they're right about, though they didn't get into it at all, is that this is going to be VERY bad for some people. Some folks who make their living doing this will have anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up on these sites. I guarantee that freezing their accounts has ruined a number of people's lives. I would have liked some more on this topic. (Though I understand I'm probably not in the majority here)

5 - Can you get the fucking aspect ratio right on Cenk's camera? Is it really so hard to center-cut a 16:9 shot? Or is Cenk just trying to make himself look skinny? Speaking of which, why isn't this whole spot 16:9? It's 2011. How long are SD aspect ratios going to be around?

That's all I remember, and I don't want to rewatch this video and get worked up all over again. Bad reporting IMO. I feel like I say that about TYT very often.