wow. more suspenseful that any holywood film i've seen of late. That final leap was an amazing feat.

To be fair, you were taught this in school if you were taught wave particle duality and the double slit experiment. Look at this. Now imagine a particle bouncing along in very small steps (quantum leaps if you will), and the direction it goes depends on the strength and orientation of the wave where it lands. You may never have been told to think about it like that, but that's what makes physics so amazing that sometimes all it takes is for someone to think about it slightly differently. The information was there all along, but who would imagine the 'particle' bit of an electron interacting with the 'wave' bit - the electron interacts with itself?

I absolutely love it, it's amazing, and simple and beautiful. It may provide insights into new ways we can model quantum behaviour, it might open up new questions to ask.

There's things I'd like to know. First, if the standing waves generated at each step in the droplet's progression interact with each other, the droplet is reacting according to waves it made in the past - what implications does that have for the notion of real particles in a spacetime continuum? For the double slits experiment to work in that model - in the ball on a rubber sheet sense - the sheet would have to stay warped to some extent after the ball had passed. In the quantum sense of the real double slits experiment, we would say it IS a wave, passes through both slits and appears according to statistical probability (the diffraction pattern).

Presumably several droplets released along the same path would go on to take a different route through the slits, to create a diffraction pattern as it must. Perhaps because of fluctuations in the temperature or density of the water at different locations? Is that a limitation of the model or an indicator about the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Perhaps even due to quantum fluctuations in the water particles - the water is never the same twice even if its perfectly still each time - which would potentially mean we're cyclically using quantum mechanics to explain quantum mechanics and we actually haven't explained very much.

The philosophy bit: But this reaches to the heart of the issue with quantum mechanics and perhaps science in general. How accurately can we model reality? The reality is beyond our ability to see, so we can only recreate simpler versions that are always wrong in some way... our idea of what happens - our models - can never be 100% because only a particle in spacetime can perfectly represent a particle in spacetime.

Scientific results and definitions are always defined with limits - "it works like this, within these confines, under these conditions, with these assumptions." There are always error margins. We are always only ever communicating an idea between different consciousnesses, and that idea will never be as true to life as life itself.

Sorry for the wall of text, it's a great and provocative experiment.

I would never down vote a video like this simply because it offends my knowledge of math and logic and irritates the hell out of me. These kind of problems have been coming my way on facebook repeatedly and they do get huge numbers of comments with wildly different solutions. Actually out of the 500,000 comments claimed for this one probably half of them give 42 as the answer. My problem comes from the assumption that an algebraic variable represented by a symbol (an image of a boot) bears some inherent relationship to a different symbol (two boots). Even if you make that leap that two boots is two separate variables, if there is no operand between them they should be multiplied, not added. In algebra a term such as 3AB equals 3 times A times B not 3+A+B. Unfortunately in this problem with two horseshoes equaling 4 it works either way but if two boots equals 2 then one should equal the square root of two and the correct solution would be 21.414.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

That was a leap. He's no Jimmy Carr, but at the same time, I wonder if this would have been better if Jimmy Carr had delivered it?

She probably would have made the leap if he didn't start laughing at her. Probably gets this a lot from him.

I also wonder if this wasn't set up by him, as why'd he be filming?

Also, I seem to remember there's a medical/mental condition that forces her to think larger numbers means larger items. She might not be a ditz, he's just taking advantage of her.

Kind of....but not as you describe.
Folks are already disqualified only if they have been found by the courts to be dangerously mentally defective after testing by a professional. That's a much bigger hurdle to leap than simply BEING defective, a hurdle that rarely is leaped.
You don't have to lie or hide anything if you've never been tested by a professional and deemed dangerous. Most mental defectives have not had that happen.
Guns MAY be confiscated after one is deemed legally dangerously mentally defective AND that determination is forwarded to the police AND they have the time and manpower to do something about it. That usually only happens when the person is already being prosecuted for some crime, they are found by the court to be dangerous to themselves and/or others, AND their guns are registered.

I have no idea where you got this idea that the law says indigence=criminally insane....it simply does not. Some elderly are having their firearms taken when they are put on welfare because they have dementia and can't manage their funds, but that's not what you said. It may be true that those forced by financial pressures to live in government run homes are not allowed to bring their firearms there, but again, that's not what you said.
The state does not move in and forcibly 'financially manage' the indigent in the US just because they're poor. Ever. If they did, we would not have a growing homeless population.

There are so many loopholes to 'compulsory service' that it's not compulsory at all, nor is it likely to ever be used again. Massive numbers of untrained soldiers is no longer a positive on the battlefield.

Being well trained in the proper use of firearms inhibits accidental misuse of firearms AND makes one reasonably 100% liable for their misuse if they ignore their training. If you were never trained what's proper and what's not, it makes it easy to misuse them and to then claim ignorance to avoid or mitigate liability for your actions.

-Newt

I'd hold off for a bit.

The Sheriff doesn't say that he's posted all the dashcam videos to YT, he said it was all included along with the police report that was given out the to the media. That would be the media that was in the room there with him. The media people in the room where NOBODY called out the Sheriff to say they'd watched all the dashcam video and found him to be lying. If the Sheriff is lying about the existence of the dashcam footage, 100% of the media present never bother to look at the footage to check for themselves.

I'm inclined to believe at least one of the media folks did at least that much of their job. If they did NOT, I'm not entirely inclined to leap in with both feet to believing their side fo the story just yet either.

Is it so hard to accept the possibility the police aren't monsters out there trying to murder civilians every chance they get?

This is just a promotional video from Magic Leap, it's right on their main page: http://www.magicleap.com/#/home

They make AR technology, and nobody in the scene is wearing a headset, so it's just a concept thing they put together.

Wait, so you're saying a bad investment in the past justifies a bad investment in the future?

Maybe it's better to face the realization that you can't control a 3000+ km border and mass Stasi-like raids to root out all existing illegal immigrants (which let's face is what would be required for any total solution) is neither practical nor American? Instead maybe all that wasted money you recognize could be spent on policing to prevent the associated crime?

I mean you've gone so far as to acknowledge money has been wasted so far. Is it really a far cry to realize that this wall idea would fail momentously too? That maybe just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's practical to enforce and that laws should change to manage an unavoidable reality?

Particularly since it should be obvious any company that loses access to immigrant labor can just shift their factories a few km over the border with relative ease, meaning the only jobs created from this wall will be those created in a temporary and ultimately redundant government construction project.

You're half the way there on your logic, just make the final leap already.

I always thought it was funny that the entirety of civilization is addicted to and powered by worm shit in the story....and they don't even know it.
Of course, our civilization is addicted to and powered by rotten vegetable matter, so it's really not such a huge leap and is, in fact, a huge improvement.
Shit is better than putrescence, IMO. Apparently Herbert agreed.

Cue BobKnight leaping in to defend the Klan in 3... 2... 1...

I thought it was a fun movie that didnt require analyzing. No fully logical conclusions and if there was I rather enjoy the mystery more than the leaps and bounds required to solve this puzzle.

It was a movie that was, in the end, either dream or reality. The movie could be symbolically regarded as a box and thus we can say that as long as the movie is always just a movie (remaining in the box), the ending will be both real and a dream (alive and dead). If the movie could be made manifest as reality to experience and fully acknowledge the truth, we could make a conclusion. But as long as it is still just a movie, the truth can never be determined and thus both possibilities are true. Or Shrodinger's Film.