>> ^residue:

are all the upvotes from people who didn't bother to watch the video?


I think so. If I could I would downvote. =(

Your video, Old Spice Guy Goes Down Under, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^demon_ix:

I meh'd.


Gazuntite.

>> ^rychan:

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.
Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.


Things don't need to be complicated if you don't go into the metabolism side of things. Running is different from walking in that both of you feet are off the ground at the same time. You're basically flying through the air most of the time, or should be. Bouncing too much shows that you make contact with the ground for too long. By simply landing on the balls of your feet (not your toes or, worse, your heels) without trying to push yourself forward (i.e. with legs straight down under you at the instant your whole foot is contacting the ground and then pulling the foot up instead of pushing out with your toes), you can create a spring like reaction in your leg muscle that will give you just enough vertical energy to stay level with the ground, reducing the bounce to a theoretical minimum of zero. What makes you advance forward is your previous momentum combined with gravity making your slightly forward-leaning body fall at an angle (the lean will need to be more pronounced the faster you want to run). With good form, you can easily create a very constant stride without bounce since you do not rely on your leg muscles to propel yourself, but only to keep you up in the air for the longest possible proportion of time (resulting in less friction, more energy transfer from gravity, etc.). Look at horses : their hind legs are bent backwards for propulsion, yet they still have no bounce (we feel a bounce because we ride in the middle, but in absolutes they do not bounce). Plus, their front legs always hit the ground at a 90 degree angle right under them. In human terms, the front legs are our legs, the hind legs are our slight forward lean. If we had not adapted this way, we'd either be running like kangaroos, i.e. by actually bouncing, or we'd not be able to run at all, like monkeys.

tl;dr : landing on the balls of your feet keeps you in the air at a stable, constant height; leaning slightly forward allows gravity to pull you forward.

Walking though is very different. Here you want the pendulum effect created by the arms to conserve energy, but the same principle applies for maximum efficiency : land with the legs at 90 degrees to the ground, under your center of gravity and don't push with your toes. Of course there are ways to walk/run faster with less efficiency, it all depends whether you're in a marathon or a race.

>> ^Sagemind:

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.
Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??


On the contrary, they're the ones who have been doing it right all along. Mass consumerism + fad marketing destroyed our feet with "running" shoes. Plus, scientists have assumed for a long time that everyone knows instinctively how to run properly. They were wrong. Just as we learn how to walk we must learn how to run. Some can learn on their own, some copy others like Angua1 and some just can't run or end up copying bad running forms from people who "unlearned" how to run thanks to padded "running" shoes. Our ancestors learned how to run properly because for them it was a vital skill, just like using a bow, a knife or a sling. Plus they didn't have padded shoes, medical treatment or motorized locomotion so running badly was not an option if they were to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the video is bullshit. Go look for the POSE method of running for accurate information. This method also addresses the crossover problems.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

He's an Aussie not Brit


Thank you, you are quite right. I have changed it from the brit channel to the down under channel.

Aye fink sum of eyoo lads down under think a tad too mooch!

>> ^Retroboy:

What the heck would require you to remove a dog's eyes at four months?
Upvote for the overcoming challenges bit, but geez, poor dog and stuff.


Blind since birth, the talented dog found a forever home four years ago with 41-year-old Wood and her husband, Terry. After Wood lost a previous dog to cancer, a friend told her about a "dumped dog" that had just given birth, so Wood decided to rescue a puppy and picked Myron "because he looked cross-eyed."

But after just two weeks of getting to know her new guy, Wood learned that Myron was blind. Within three months, Myron developed glaucoma and his eyes began to swell to the size of golf balls; surgery to remove his eyeballs was Myron's only option to alleviate his pain.

After the operation, "he was very happy," Wood says. "His confidence came back tenfold."

(http://www.peoplepets.com/news/amazing/myron-the-blind-dog-is-a-star-down-under/1)

I guess that makes sense. TBH, just wanted some more discussion on the variable speed of light. I don't fully understand the implications of it - but I'm sure some folks around here would.

Leaving on a jet plane on Wednesday, probably not going to be around too much after that, so I'll take this opportunity to thank you for creating this thing. I spent way too much time here, but it's a great place. I'll drop you a line if I ever get down under.

Throbbin

In reply to this comment by dag:
Well - the thing is, we don't want it used often. Being on the top of the front page should be a Big Deal - not something to be done lightly. I see where you're coming from though.

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Hey Dag. Would you be open to a review of the frontpage invocation? 4 PP's is pretty steep. Not sure if there was already a discussion around this (if there was I missed it).

The boxer who took the dive was found unfit to fight in Sydney by the New South Wales Combat Sports Authority.

On 21 July 2010 Briggs returned to the ring in Perth to take on Danny Green for the IBO cruiserweight title. Before the bout Green labelled Briggs "unprofessional" after the latter weighed in nearly 4kgs over the agreed-upon weight. The ensuing fight was seen as a "farce",[4] with Briggs collapsing after 29 seconds following an innocuous left jab by Green, his first in the fight, which appears to have at most brushed the top of Briggs' head. Briggs was subsequently booed out of the stadium by irate fans, and had to be protected by management from projected missiles being thrown at him. In a post-bout interview Green labelled Briggs a "less than canine" and claimed he would not be getting paid for the fight, while also apologising to fans who had paid to attend.[4] Speculation has arisen as to whether Briggs threw the fight, as online bookmaker Centrebet labelled the bout "highly, highly dubious" following a massive betting plunge shortly before the fight.[5] The fight had been due to be held in Sydney but was moved at the last minute after the New South Wales Combat Sports Authority refused to commission the bout claiming Briggs was "unfit" to fight.[6]

Boxing is known to cause damage to the sense of balance. I thought it was the left jab to the body, a late pain in the lower stomach that caused him to give up. He could have gotten up. This statement is in hopes that he was physically unfit for fighting.

According to the Article that @kymbos posted, he was knocked out while sparring two weeks prior to the fight. Who the hell get's knocked out whilst sparring. Unless they do some different sparring down under.

Paul Briggs came out looking good, but I think he was just spent mentally. His trainers should have never let him fight.

Edit: This fight looks like shit.

>> ^gwiz665:

Men at Wok are usually good cooks.
I love that restaurant. You should see what they come out & sing for birthdays.

It's a limited US theatrical release. No down under.

>> ^KnivesOut:
@10 seconds you can hear a faint high-pitched wine. It seems like the supporting crane on the right is starting to break down under the load. @21 seconds you can see the base of the right crane apparently explode (launching some debris into the air) and catch fire.
The right crane was the culprit, I'd wager.
I hope no one was injured.


Agreed. Here is my guess:
One of the wires on the crane on the right broke under the load. The weight of the falling crane pulled the remaining wire off the spool on the crane on the right. The speed at which this happened caused the brake mechanism to snap (debris flying in the air at 00:57) And then the heat from the friction blew it to pieces.

And: What therealblankman said

@10 seconds you can hear a faint high-pitched wine. It seems like the supporting crane on the right is starting to break down under the load. @21 seconds you can see the base of the right crane apparently explode (launching some debris into the air) and catch fire.

The right crane was the culprit, I'd wager.

I hope no one was injured.

>> ^RedSky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwzckHZgmxM
Change it to this embed, there's more hilarity


Thanks and done.

>> ^vaporlock:
What BS. The song is from 1934 and it still has a valid copyright. Out-f ckin-rageous!!!


Thank Disney.