Yeah, they used some very easy method to pull this off, no matter which way they did it. I can think of a few ways to do it. It's made incredibly easy to do, as well, due to the fact that Teller is allowed to get in it first and also that the bag never leaves it's origin (at the setup anyway--it doesn't matter after Teller is out).

I would use the "bag within a bag" type setup. Essentially when Teller gets in, there is already an opening at the bottom (with the stage sitting right there). Teller is standing on the stage, basically. With the second hole pulled up past him and cinched shut once Penn closes the other end (stopping helium from getting out).

Then they flash out the lights, and Teller merely pushes the bag off him, and making sure to cinch any slack off the bottom so it doesn't "droop" or look bigger than it should--if that was even needed (as they may have put a mild adhesive on the ground to keep the bag in place; Teller can also do it, but it's easier the other way).

It does make for a nice illusion.

I think this technology will be more useful when automated cars begin to take over the market. If you have a company that basically runs a automated taxi service the car can pull up on its own and get recharged. I also think the general servicing of the car will eventually go that route as well.

Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

Is that the "gun" the kid had and was point / waving? A colt 1911. A great hand gun to have, no orange tip? Where is parental control on this?


video of the incident
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police



It seems to me that since the cops pulled up directly on the kid they had not choice except for self protection.

That being said the cops should not have pulled up that close but close enough to have a stand off and have the kid surrender the weapon.

yeah maybe. i dunno, i've seen people just freeze like a deer in the headlights whenever something unusual happens on the road.

Literally last night we pulled up as an accident had occurred ahead of us, and for the next five minutes the number of people who blasted past a line of stopped cars all with their hazards on and full headlight beams illuminating the crash site and so on, was staggering. Last minute they'd realize that yes, there's a car blocking one lane and facing the wrong way all smashed to bits and yes, there's glass and oil on the road. One after anouther they'd slam on the brakes, almost hit it, then almost get rear ended.

People drive with total tunnel vision i think. It's kinda scary how little awareness some people have. On the other hand maybe they're an asshole. hard to say.

He pulled up on the brake pedal, if it was warped disks he'd have to push down on it to get that effect.

Watch the movie again and see how much line the guy pulls up. That's about ten waders in length, almost in the middle of what looks like a well-defined channel. Even if it was out lengthwise, that tells me there's a decent current there.

Next, try and go swimming in waders, or get them off when you're either in water or hanging on to a broken ice ledge.

The guy doesn't have ice pick safety devices in easy reach, it's windy as heck, and the conditions are slushy which means that ice is breaking up. And the ice in the hole doesn't look very thick either, maybe a couple inches from what I can see.

I'm "quick to judge" because I'm also an experienced ice fisherman. From all evidence that's visible in the video, that's a very dangerous way to fish.

Now this is a smokin' hot dame and the band is for sure a class AAA live act.
I'm on my way home from a live concert in Oslo with Postmodern Jukebox - and just guess who miss Savales there sang this very number for and almost pulled up on stage, if not this humble sifter?
*quality, *promote

This video has been discussed on several pilot forums. People have pointed out that this also looks like a failed go-around without adding appropriate power. If the pilot was near stall when he pulled up, and the left wing stalled first, this is exactly what would happen. Very scary if that much turbulence can stick around for that long after a Blackhawk has departed.

One would think squeezing your thighs together and pushing down, while pulling up with your hands would allow a point where your lower foot could sweep free.

Oh, and the problem with the FreddieW video is the guy doesn't have shoes on.

Well, I appreciate the thought, even if you didn't follow through.

No, perhaps there's the misunderstanding. He did not FLEE as I see it. The officer pulled up behind him, he pulled away. He was not being stopped, no flashing lights on, no loudspeaker telling him to pull over or stay there, only a spot light. That is not an indicator that you must stop, or even an indicator that it's a cop, so there was nothing to flee from. In fact, as I see it, it's the prudent, intelligent thing to do if you are on the side of the road, alone, in the dark and a strange car pulls up behind you and shines a light at you. Drive away, don't wait to be carjacked. When the flashing lights came on, he pulled over right away, did not flee.

No this is not abuse or misconduct. It is a cop being rude because a citizen asserted his rights, calmly and respectfully in my eyes. It also seems to be a cop being angry someone didn't 'respect his authoritah' by waiting to see what he might want, but he could have been far worse about it.
Not all cop videos must be either of abusive misconduct or PR videos of them being nice.

When I'm stopped, I do the same thing, refuse to answer questions, but I realize the cops are humans and I calmly and clearly explain that I can't answer their questions without a lawyer present, nor will I without blanket immunity in writing from the DA. Then I produce ID (if asked) and sit quietly with my hands in view. I've never had a problem, when it's explained the cops always understand (even if they don't like it).

EDIT: I hope you will go back and re-read my first reply to your comment. It was not condescending in the least, IMO. I don't know at all what you mean. Sincerely.

I originally came back to this thread to apologize to you for being so harsh last night, but reading your response I just have to say...

The fucking guy FLED after the cop pulled up to help. What part of that do you not understand? YOU are the one having a problem with logic and reason and maybe just a basic understanding of reality.

There is no shortage of actual police abuse/misconduct videos out there! This is not one of them!

On a side note, you might think of yourself as being polite and reasonable but you have been condescending from the get go. And that's fucking funny to me. Good luck fighting with cops on the side of the road.

Here's a life lesson:

You don't have to be a confrontational asshole every time you have an encounter with a police officer.

The cop doesn't say "respect the police".
(edit: I'm referring to the original title of the sift, check your address bar sifters from the future)

He said, "You should learn a little respect when you're in the service".

I suspect he's referring to the fact that the driver copped an attitude and was acting like a douchebag from moment one.

This could have went bad in all kinds of ways but from the video it's apparent to me that the cop kept his cool, and even if the stop was technically illegal (I'm not convinced it was) I understand completely why he did it.

Here's the scenario. Cop sees driver pull off on to the shoulder of the road. Good guy cop (yep, there's lots of them) pulls over behind him to make sure he's OK (flat tire? medical problem?). ie. his "welfare"

When the cop pulls up to try to help, the driver takes off. Now what is the cop thinking? Who fucking knows. Is there a victim in the car that originally made the driver pull over?

"I approached you and you took off on me"

So he stops him, and all the while this driver is being an asshole, the cop is just thinking to himself "fuck, I was just trying to help this guy".

Looks like he was being pulled up by the safety rope...