Dammit, if the 'Sift is gonna go through another Whose Line phase...
well then I'll just have to keep watching them... and laughing my ass off.

Real reason? Reality shows are cheap to make, music videos are expensive to show. But before MTV stopped playing music, they went thru phases where each iteration did bring us only the top 10 or record label promotion paid them to play their new artists, then that was mixed with reality and finally they stopped pretending and just switched on full reality tv that they can sell. MTV could see it like this parody video on their end "people are watching less and less music" but it was exactly the cancellation of Headbangers Ball, Yo Raps, Alternative Nation etc. that lead to declining numbers.. I stopped watching wh en headbangers and Alt nation stopped as it was only top hits from that point on. Everything even remotely alternative or indie was gone, there were no one selecting new music as there were no more people to host the shows, VJs were gone, it was just automated playlist that plaid literally the same songs over and over. It was an attempt to get more profit from casual music listeners but even they turned it down: it seems like you need and want to hear music you don't like every now and then to make your favorites a lot more important.. Even i wouldn't watch a music station that plays only the things i like, i need to hear one or two really awful crap every now and then just to remind me that music can be truly awful and soulless product and not everyone is Radiohead.

And mind you, those alternative shows only aired at odd hours, headbangers ball was around midnight and really hard stuff like Into the Pit was aired around 2am, it still was top 20 during the day. But it did mix it up a little, one alternative or indie video per hour. You take that one exception away and it is boring no matter what your music taste is.

And how exactly does it dismiss it? I no where said that gay men must be flamboyant. I said that suggesting that gay men must look and act straight or face the consequences is deeply problematic. I have no problem with gay men who feel they only differ from straight men with respect to who they like to date. I do have a problem with someone suggesting that ALL gay men need to look and act that way. To me that seems like trying to manage difference so it's palatable to mainstream norms.

Full disclosure: I'm a transsexual, and unless you were extremely lucky or started transitioning before the onset of puberty, that means spending part of your transition, or in the worst case the rest of your life, looking visibly "not normal" to everyone else. I was not flamboyant, I was polite, unassuming, and did my best to fit in, but for a few years my mere existence was, to many people, as obnoxious and offensive as the flamboyant man in this video. Does that mean I deserved the hate and discrimination I got? I sure hope not. The fact that this video seems to say don't look different or you'll get what's coming to you, hits a nerve for me because for several years I COULDN'T look "normal" however much I wanted to. I'm just thankful I'm past that phase and people now see me as I see myself, treat me how I want to be treated, and I can live a "normal" life, because if this video is anything to go by then that's the hurdle you have to clear before you've earned the right not to be hated or discriminated against.

whiskey stones don't involve a phase change and are not nearly as effective as ice at cooling. Ice slightly dilutes the drink which is often desirable as dilution can actually free some of the aromatics which are dissolved in the alcohol. i.e giving a better nose. It's all a matter of preference.
How about drinking pure heavy water (D2O)

Finland, my previous profession for many years was touring as audio technician and a roadie so i've connected different electrical sockets in my time. Schuko is by far the best solution for general single phase 220V systems (multiphases in the world are far better standardized anyway and they are equally brilliant..).

So, this is a major misconception by the public about where the money actually goes when drugs are developed. Read the link you have there, but with a more realistic eye about where the money is going. Drugs are SUPER expensive, but only because they're super expensive to discover. 'Drug discovery' is a tremendously difficult thing, to the point where it is the wetdream of a professional drug discoverer in the pharma world to discover 1 drug in their 30+ year career. During that time, the team of pharma researchers all have to be paid for their PhD level of expertise, and the human cost in developed countries is quite expensive! If there are 1000 people in one pharma company, and each person makes ~70+ thousand, and benefits cost another 100+ thousand per person each year, then the human cost alone in that rough exercise accounts for 170 million yearly for just 1000 people, and can touch the billion dollar figure per year for very large companies. That is where the money is going in that 1.3 billion dollar figure.

The major problem lies in developing a substance that actually does something, and you know exactly what that something is, including all side effects. To get a statistically valid clinical trial is actually a rather hard thing to do; a poorly designed clinical trial can prove whatever you want it to. Considering your St. John's wort example, the most costly 'drug discovery' component is already finished, it would just need to go through clinical trials as a drug for antidepression. The body of evidence in place may already serve for early phase clinical trials, and it may just need to go through a couple of more trials to prove its efficacy (and determine side effects). It would cost some money, but it would NOT be so prohibitively expensive as starting from complete scratch.

Considering this, the idea that it's 'unfair' to make the supplements world actually prove their product does what it is promised to do (or at the very least, not be harmful) is a bit odd. Quackery is illegal for moral reasons, and hard to argue that what the supplements world is doing is not quackery; particularly with the Dr. Oz zeal, false promises are being sold millions of bottles at a time. It is in the public's interest to get this stuff tested and approved!

Finally got to see this last night. Wow Jodoworsky's movies are super super trippy and apparently he took a lot of liberties with the story. He even jokes about raping Frank Herbert.

It kinda bums me out that if he had made the movie...I suspect I wouldn't like it.

I saw Lynch's Dune as a kid and I absolutely loved it....so it was really interesting to hear Jodoworsky thought it was horrible. It kinda reminds me of how when the Sci Fi Miniseries was announced, I finally resolved to read the novel and I was blown away how different it was from Lynch's Dune and how the miniseries was closer to the books. So I went through this phase where I absolutely hated Lynch's Dune too...but I got over it.

Not exactly.. It is limited by time and amount of energy. There is no "push to pass" button but they have some leeway on how to spread the extra energy around the lap. You can use it more on one corner but for the rest of the lap, you're total power output is reduced.

First race is now over, RBR got disqualified due to too much fuel was being fed to the engine... Also the dreaded "they will save fuel" phase was over in 10 laps. There were lots of technical DNFs, 14 cars made it to the finishline, which was miles better than worst fears. Some of the cars made their first race distance. But the main change was..

Almost unlimited torque at the low revs.. The cars were sliding, they were skittish, there were 3rd gear opposite locks.. They are once again more powerful than the grip what tires and aero can produce. Turns like T2 and T5 in Albert Park used to be "non-corners", they just pointed the nose to apex and floor it.. Now.. totally different thing. Even T9 exit was dangerous, which it hasn't been since 1999.

Eau Rouge will not be a flat out, easy corner but terrifying rollercoaster that eats lives if you don't respect it..

Only thing we lost is the sound, the new V6 uses energy so much efficiently that sound is not as loud.. On the plus side, you can hear the tires squeeling and the audience cheering. It's not V10 screech but low throaty roar.

This is just majorly annoying until every one has it.

No one is going to know you're driving at slow speeds because you have information on the lights, they're just gonna be pissed off, do dangerous overtaking etc, which in turns is gonna throw your cars calculations off no?

Even when we get self-driving cars, cars have relatively large life spans, it's going to take 50-60yrs from when they even become popular to out phase older models. It doesn't feel like something you can retrofit.

It's just depressing all-around, I'm so over crappy inefficient human drivers. We're all just ticking time bombs escaping death every time we drive, oh you sneezed, dead, oh you felt slightly depressed and let your concentration slip for a second, dead etc

Yes we get away with it the vast majority of the time but the times we don't is still far too high.

You are thinking about QAM, Quadrature Amplitude Modulation. Thats an interesting question because QAM essentially produces the same results that the prof talks about in this video. By using interesting ways to change the beat and phase of a single carrier, one can represent a whole array of numbers greater than just a 1 or a zero with a single pulse, case in point.

In QAM, lets just use the easy example of QAM, QPSK (4QAM), where there are 4 possible binary positions for any given 'carrier' signal at a known frequency.

By shifting both phase and amplitude, you can get a 0, 1, 2 or 3, where each position represents a power of 2, up to a total value of 16 unique numbers.

Rather than just a 0 or a 1, you can have 0 through to 15. However doing this requires both a timeslot, and a known carrier window.

The fastest the QAM transmitter can encode onto a carrier is limited by the nyquist rate, that is, less than half the frequency which the receiver can sample at its fastest rate (on the remote end). As you increase the speed of the encoding, you also increase the error rate, and introduce more noise into the base carrier signal, in turn, reducing your effective available bandwidth.

So it then becomes a balancing act, do I want to encode faster, or do I want to increase my constellation density? The obvious answer is the one we went with, increase in constellation density.

There are much more dense variants, I think the highest ive heard of was 1024 QAM, where a single carrier of 8MHz wide could represent 1024 bits (1,050,625 unique values for a given 'pulse' within a carrier).

I actually had a lot more typed out here, but the maths that goes into this gets very ugly, and you have to account for noise products that are introduced as you increase both your transmission speed, and your receiver sensitivty, thus lowering your SNR, reducing your effective bandwidth for a given QAM scheme.

So rather than bore you with the details, the Shannon Hartley theorem is the hard wired physical limitation.

Think of it as an asymptote, that QAM is one method of trying to milk the available space of.

You can send encoded pulses very fast, but you are limited by nyquist, and your receivers ability to determine noise from signal.

The faster you encode, the more noise, the less effective bandwidth....and so begins the ritule of increasing constellation density, and receivers that can decode them....etc....

There is also the aspect of having carriers too close to one another that you must consider. If you do not have enough of a dead band between your receivers cut off for top end, and the NEXT carrier alongs cutoff for deadband at its LOW end, you can induce what is known as a heterodyne. These are nasty, especially so when talking about fibre, as the wavelengths used can cause a WIDE BAND noise product that results in your effective RF noise floor to jump SUBSTANTIALLY, destroying your entire network in the process.

So not only can you not have a contiguous RF bandwidth of carriers, one directly after another...if you try and get them close, you end up ruining everyones day.

I am sure there will be newer more fancy ways to fill that spectrum with useable numbers, but I seriously doubt they will ever go faster than the limit I proposed earlier (unless they can get better SNR, again that was just a stab in the dark).

It gives you a good idea of how it works though.

If you want to read more on this, I suggest checking wikipedia for the following;

Shannon Hartley theorem.
Nyquist Rate
Quadrature Phase Shift Key
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
Fibre Optic Communication Wavelengths
Stimulated Brillouin Scattering
Ebrium Doped Fibre Amplifiers

are these absolute maximums, or maximums before some clever ?quadrature phase shift? encoding scheme makes it pack even more information than is being mentioned

You can see a lot of inter dimensional phase shifting in this video. Obviously from the future.

Aww, I thought this was going to be a parody at the start, but nope, just a young stupid person going through their political phase.

Related: http://videosift.com/video/Somalia-Libertarian-Paradise

She is just going through her tramp phase.

The is one of the high-quality Star Trek Fan Films on the web. If you enjoyed it, I would like to invite you to also look at the work of Phase II, Starship Exeter, and Starship Farragut, to name a few. Here is the most extensive listing of Star Trek Fan Films I know about, Star Trek Reviewed: [url redacted]