>> ^budzos:

Just watched it again and maybe I was confusing this with the Usain Bolt video where the girl runs up to him with flowers as he's finishing a race. On second viewing this was a little jerky.
I just wat>> ^Januari:
>> ^budzos:
This is like the video of the tennis guys having to watch some corporate idiot talk for ten minutes before they could sit down after playing four or five sets. The guy has just run 3000M as fast as he can.... the race hasn't been over for TEN SECONDS you can't let him catch his breath, maybe experience the moment and store a memory? Maybe let things proceed with some dignity? No, you have to get your branding on screen at his expense immediately. Fuck that mascot, fuck her gift basket, fuck her employers and fuck the corporate PR/marketing whores who shove "branding" and "identity" down our throats incessantly. Fuck!

Yeah... lets ignore the fact that he walked 20 yards RIGHT to her... didn't have to go anywhere near her if he didn't want to.



You commented. Got a message saying someone quoted you. Clicked the email link. Scrolled past the thumbnail and all comments to re-quote and argue, twice. Then realized you were commenting on the wrong video??

Just watched it again and maybe I was confusing this with the Usain Bolt video where the girl runs up to him with flowers as he's finishing a race. On second viewing this was a little jerky.

I just wat>> ^Januari:

>> ^budzos:
This is like the video of the tennis guys having to watch some corporate idiot talk for ten minutes before they could sit down after playing four or five sets. The guy has just run 3000M as fast as he can.... the race hasn't been over for TEN SECONDS you can't let him catch his breath, maybe experience the moment and store a memory? Maybe let things proceed with some dignity? No, you have to get your branding on screen at his expense immediately. Fuck that mascot, fuck her gift basket, fuck her employers and fuck the corporate PR/marketing whores who shove "branding" and "identity" down our throats incessantly. Fuck!

Yeah... lets ignore the fact that he walked 20 yards RIGHT to her... didn't have to go anywhere near her if he didn't want to.

It's a pretty neat idea, but 100% limited to static content: for a given enhancement (say, 4x) each pixel has to be refreshed four times faster, which means a 60 frames-per-second display will fall down to 12FPS. Even a fancy 120Hz display will be as low as 24 frames per second, which means you'll have massive amount of jerkiness and/or ghosting any time animated content is displayed, even for something as simple as a scrolling page.

In fact in current LCD tech, it is the refresh rate that is the main limitation, much more than maximum resolution.

aka beef jerky mom.. LOL

>> ^xxovercastxx:

YT has been shitty for me lately, too. Lots of herky-jerky even when it's fully buffered.


Same for me regardless of quality or how much has been loaded, and its a lot worse on less popular videos.

YT has been shitty for me lately, too. Lots of herky-jerky even when it's fully buffered.

Then it would be a "semi-domesticated" deer. Not a wild deer. And yes, very tasty. I'm partial to venison jerky myself.>> ^Contagion21:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I seriously doubt that deer is wild. Just sayin...

Depends on how you define wild. It was likely born in the wild and sleeps in the forest. The person who lives there just started leaving food out for the deer and eventually semi-domesticated them to the degree that they're comfortable in the presence of humans and dogs. Even to the point of being able to hand feed them.
The sad part is that in a year or so the lack of fear of humans is what's going to get this deer killed by hunters (earlier than may have been likely without that fear.)
Then again, maybe this guy plans to shoot them himself. Deer is tasty.

It's more than speed it's control and efficiency of movement. You start off very very slowly, like literally moving in slow motion working on balance at every stage of a defense and counter and progressively get faster and faster. I wonder how it would look in an actual fight but notice how the guy sparring with him looks jerky and off balance even before being touched.

Pretty cool, love this stuff.

Loved the beef jerky debacle

Give him a piece of jerky. See if he'll follow you home.

Seriously, this is both really cool because it's so rare, and really scary because they will eat you. It's not like spotting a wolf or wild horses (here in Oregon). Both kinda rare and special, but no real danger. It's disturbing because it just stands there, as if it's contemplating lunch.

Such a disconnect between smooth voice and jerky movements (what is that called? dub step?)

How does he move that way? Because he is amszing!

I always thought his movies were too fast and jerky at times. This explains it.

Yup

1. Kerpal 27 up, 2 down

Kerpal is a fictional character named in a famous prank call (often attributed to the Jerky boys).

The man in the prank call identifies himself as Kerpal and seems to be of ambiguous South Asian descent. A man known as Akhtar (the correct Pakistani name) answers the telephone. Kerpal then alleges that Akhtar's older daughter kicked his dog. After minutes of confusion it is revealed that the daughter knows nothing about kicking Kerpal's dog, let alone who Kerpal is. The call eventually degrades into a shouting match with Kerpal shouting obscenities to no-end.

At least three different Flash animations have been created to visualize this call. The simplest one, thought to be the original and generally most liked, was created by Adam Letalik and published by FlatPlanet.org in late 1999.

Just for fun, and at random, you pick the weakest and most ambiguous quote..but funnily enough you have haven't helped your case in the least. The quote itself stands as a critique on the poor evidence of the fossil record..and if you read the rest of it carefully, which you clearly haven't, you can see that he is saying that if you boil the entire idea of evolution down to change..the fossil record still doesn't neccsarily bear out the mechanism of natural selection. Nice try though..

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Just for fun, I picked a random quote out from @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry's collection, and did a quick search on it. Ever tried this, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry?
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry quotes Raup:
... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25
That was page 25, lets pick a quote from page 26 of the same paper, shall we?
Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.

Just for fun, I picked a random quote out from @shinyblurry's collection, and did a quick search on it. Ever tried this, @shinyblurry?
@shinyblurry quotes Raup:
... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


That was page 25, lets pick a quote from page 26 of the same paper, shall we?

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.