search results matching tag: The Bends

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (245)     Sift Talk (11)     Blogs (17)     Comments (909)   

Theramintrees - seeing things

newtboy says...

That is as factual as any of it. If people enter hell because they don't worship the correct god in the correct way, but have no way to tell which way/god is correct, or if any is, that is no fault of their own. If your proclaimed system was fair, god needs to come to each person and make them KNOW his truth, then offer them the choice to reject it. That's not what happens, no matter how many rainbows and sunsets you see.

I won't go to hell then, and neither will any real atheist. I've never seen/heard/read anything convincing about any religion...ever. I don't 'know there's a god' or right way to worship, it seems far more likely there isn't. I say this with all honesty and not because it's somehow convenient or I'm 'angry at god'. I did not 'reject' him, I don't think he exists to reject.

Mathew 7:14 seems to repeat what I said, it's incredibly hard to find the way into heaven and most people won't find the way...according to your brand of religion. It's not that they reject the way, they can't find it, even though many looked with vigor.

No, it's like some guy telling you in the courtroom hallway that the judge will say that, but no one has ever seen it happen, or even seen the judge or what happens after your case is heard, there are no ex cons at all anywhere. This is the same guy that's telling you what the law is, but make no mistake, he's not a lawyer and he's telling you things that make no sense at all (like the judge will let you off for murder if you just SAY you won't do it again).
I don't think even the most hard core murderers and rapist have NO remorse, only the true psychopaths and they're rare.

When I die and god and Jesus are there asking me questions and telling me what the rules really were, I'll believe in them and say so clearly, and admit I was wrong. Not a nano second before they prove themselves though.

Ahhh, but did we have a flat EKG and brain scan on Jesus to prove he even died? ;-)
Also, yes, 3 days later! If you eat poorly prepared blowfish you can go into a total paralysis that looks like death, and come out of it 3 days later +-! It's how Voodoo practitioners probably made 'zombies'. That doesn't happen every day, but often enough that you can't bury people in Japan right away if they eat sushi.

Still sounds like a logical fallacy to me, with some people shoving their heads in the sand to avoid seeing it. I say you can't have it both ways, the punishment is eternity in hell and Jesus should have stayed no matter how special he and his pops are, and since he left (after less than 3 days? pussy!), he didn't even take the punishment he expects humans to, forget taking that amount of punishment for each person. Saying he's 'special' so he didn't have to is ridiculous and shows the mind bending mental acrobatics you must do to make sense of this. It reminds me of the 'I'm too rich to have to go to prison' defense.

Oh, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying about the soul.

shinyblurry said:

You're assuming that people enter into hell through no fault of their own....

A Response to Lars Andersen: a New Level of Archery

kceaton1 says...

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!

Stephen Fry on Meeting God

newtboy says...

You are most likely correct that that is not what most people think, because most people simply don't think.

Wow...so any mystic, people generally regarded as useless for any other profession, should be given more weight than anyone who ever graced a stage, no matter what other credentials they may possess? I don't believe that is what most people think, not even most religious people.

Any functioning eye can see itself if you have a mirror. A sword can cut itself if you melt/bend it. ;-)

It seems that you think god had the option to create a perfect universe, but chose not to. If 'he' is omniscient, he does know how it will turn out. (side note, all BUT ONE of those infinite possibilities would be imperfection, but why would 'he' not choose perfection?)

The elegant function of the universe is no proof or even indication of any intelligence behind it, but is only proof of elegance of the laws of physics/nature. No intelligence or designer required for this elegance, and I think the need to have an anthropomorphized "creator" take credit is just a way to feel that somehow humans (which most would say 'he' created the universe for, and/or are made in 'his' image), and therefore you are, in some way, very like the 'creator' and deserving of misusing the universe in any way you see fit.

Non theists do not get mad at god anymore than you get mad at Santa for not bringing you what you want, or leprechauns for not handing you their gold. We get mad at people acting ridiculously, giving credit to phantoms for explainable events, confusing fact with myth, confusing impressionable undereducated people, wasting valuable time with nonsense and non sequitur (often simply as a method to obstruct change), and standing in the way of progress, both scientific and societal. We don't think god fails our standard (except the standard of reality or the requirement of actual existence), we think the very IDEA of god fails along with every definition or description...every time it's examined honestly....no matter which god you choose to examine.

lantern53 said:

I don't believe that it is what most people think. Most people believe in God, for starters, according to every poll ever taken on the subject, at least here in the US.

The mystics, who deserve far more credence than stage actors, say that God created the universe because an eye can not see itself, nor a sword cut itself. For God to know himself, the universe was created, so that God could see all of the possibilities. And one of those possibilities is imperfection, or at least what we see as imperfection, such as people who kill or bacteria that makes us sick.

The programmer programs the computer and he doesn't always know how it's going to turn out. The artist throws paint on the canvas but a certain chaos theory enters into it.

At any rate, to see the Universe and not realize the intelligence behind it is just sad. At the least a thinking person should investigate all aspects of it.

To ignore the intelligence behind the universe is just stubbornness. How do you maintain your anger at God when you don't even believe in God?

I got news for you. If you are mad at God, then you believe in God. If you think God fails your standard, then where did that standard come from?

Using Lasers To Make Super-Hydrophobic Surfaces

newtboy says...

@deathcow-yes...the super hydrophilic surface should act that way in most fluids. Not sure about scratching, but it makes sense it would lose its property with enough scratches, but bending/dents should be fine.
@Kalle-yes, and also easier cleaning, and fewer barnacles. I must add, this is not a material, it's a surface preparation/etching done with lasers, but could be made into a plastic sticker/wrap. That's what they did with the near microscopic "shark skin" surface pattern, which is designed to stop barnacles/microscopic sea life from attaching, but it is also fairly new and not in wide use yet. The thing that makes this better in my eyes is it can be applied directly to the metal, and should be easy to repair in dry dock.
I wonder which is better for repelling sea life.

Telling Stories - The Manipulative Power of Stories

messenger says...

The way I first heard the story, the spoons were attached to people's arms so they couldn't bend their elbows. That way, it makes sense.

lv_hunter said:

Those the old spoon analogy seems pretty dumb, why not just grab the shaft of the spoon to shorten the length?

Like a big 2 handed swords where you can grip above the cross guard to shorten then swing length.

Kim Jong Un Death Scene From "The Interview"

rebuilder says...

I don't buy for a minute the idea that Sony alone made the call to cancel the release.

What do you do when you get hit and threatened by what appears to be a rogue state, like happened to Sony? You go to the cops. Probably the FBI in this case. After that, considering your company is now in the middle of an international diplomatic situation involving an unstable nuclear power, you get some considered advice from the US state dept. (probably) on how to proceed.

Judging by the outcome, the decision was it's best to cancel the release to avoid making the situation worse, but to make it Sony's call, because a western government would rather not be seen bending to terror or demanding censorship.

jon stewart-rage against the rage against the machine

newtboy says...

That's absolutely not what's been reported. The reports have repeatedly said his hyoid was severely injured and he asphyxiated.
Also, we can not take the word of the public coroner when it comes to officer involved death. Like the DA, they work with the cops daily, and bend over backwards to 'help' them repeatedly. Independent prosecutors and coroners are needed on EVERY officer involved death, without them we'll see you all as members of a deadly, powerful gang of thugs.
Cops should have TALKED to him instead of deciding 'he's not complying fast enough, get him fellas' and dog piling on him, starting from behind with a hold specifically disallowed by the department. (I'm glad you didn't try to say he wasn't choked, because that would just be ridiculous). That's really overboard for someone selling loosies, and was really, obviously about contempt of cop.

It might be a good idea for them to not laugh and joke about it while the body is still lying on the sidewalk and the family is filming them too, btw. (I've seen the extended video)

Perhaps he should have cooperated, but in no way would that ensure he'd be alive. The 77 year old man cooperated fully, (when a cop just nastily grabs at your papers for no reason and without saying a thing, pulling away is expected and acceptable) and was beaten and tasered for his trouble. Cooperation simply means the cops won't be hurt, not the citizen. Many many people are injured and killed cooperating with police and in full custody yearly. You somehow put the blame 100% on them and 0% on the police that have them under their control and have the duty to protect them. The rest of us have lost all trust in cops lately, and we feel if you have a duty you should perform it.

EDIT: How did 'cooperating' work out for this guy?
http://videosift.com/video/South-Carolina-cop-shoots-man-for-getting-license

lantern53 said:

Garner didn't die from being choked. Coroner ruled there was no damage or obstruction to the trachea.

His system was weak and he died from the stress of resisting arrest. He should have cooperated and he'd be alive today.

What Japanese youth think about America

Rudimental DESPERATELY SPAMS THE INTERNET

lucky760 says...

@chicchorea, @youtubeyj is lying through his fucking teeth.

He's responsible for Senior Audience Development for the company who focuses on "SEO optimization" (which mean search engine optimization optimization) and tactical cross-promotion for their customers.

This garbage is the worst kind of self-link/spam for Rudimental, by someone who knows exactly how they're attempting to stealthily violate our posting guidelines and is trying hard to bend us over a barrel and violate our collective rectum.

It amazes me that these "reputable" companies still only try to improve their customers' online presence through fucking disgusting, deceitful spam like this bullshit.

*banwithavengeance

Nixie: Wearable Camera That Can Fly

My_design says...

From the interwebs:
"Nixie isn’t going to be on this Christmas’ shopping list and is simply a concept at this stage."
and
"The Nixie prototype, as it is now, looks like it could break at a moment’s notice, and resembles more a school science project than the next big wearable."
and
"Nixie is currently in prototype stage and as an idea, was born only ten days before the deadline for the competition. But despite having a lot of work to do, the team's pitch convinced the judges not only that the product is brilliant, but that the team has a viable business plan and can make the product, quite literally, take off. Prize money will be used for improving the propellers, motors and object navigation, as well as miniaturisation of the whole product."

I still think Intel got conned.

What this tells me is that everybody sees potential but that what they showed in the video was pure concept design. They have a very long road ahead of them still. My key issues are and remain:
Getting the booms to bend around the wrist so as to bring the motor pods back together.
Fitting the electronics into a format that will fit onto a wrist.
Maintain an acceptable level of performance for an acceptable level of time.

Funny thing is that they mention all of the things I've commented on:
Propellers, miniaturization, and navigation.

I would add form factor and battery life. But Props will be a key issue as getting efficient props at this size is very difficult and maintain tolerances in production.

newtboy said:

These competitions never give out cash prizes for theory, they only pay off for actual working prototypes. Otherwise SpaceX would be a movie, as would Deepflight and whatever they called the solar plane...along with dozens of other technologies that have come from these competitions. They just don't pay off on these competitions unless you can PROVE you solved the problems (known AND unknown) and MADE at least one prototype that works.
Intel is no dummy. They know full well you can use their own product to create a video showing anything you wish, so they would NOT be 'conned' out of $500000 with a video. That's a silly thing to say.
I'll come back and tell you that you seem to be wrong today. :-)

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, you may be right it will take 5 years to make them cheap and durable enough to sell them.

Bowling Ball and Feather dropped in largest vacuum chamber

rich_magnet says...

To elaborate on the captain's explanation:

Each barb of the feather is bending downward under its own weight due to the force of gravity. The weight of the barb exerts a downward bending force on itself. When the feather begins to fall, each barb is no longer affected by gravity, and so, recoils to its "natural" position of minimal tension. Though I can't see it in this video, I assume that each barb actually oscillates a bit about its natural position.

CaptainObvious said:

Elastic Potential Energy

Bag Snatcher Gets Trapped On Bus - Driver Gets Revenge

rabidness says...

Weeeeeelll... at 2.22 they did grab/bend him by his (smashed and pulled-apart) hand into the ground... so I'mma just call them more intelligent about it.

Engels said:

A responsive police force that doesn't immediately beat the crap out of the suspect? Definitely not the US

eric3579 (Member Profile)

man pepper sprayed in his own home as "burglar"

newtboy says...

How many times have you been accosted in your home in the middle of the night with guns drawn pointed at you and unknown people screaming contradictory commands at you from the dark?
OK, I'll be over tonight to sneak into your kids room and wake them up by screaming commands at them, they'll have .7 seconds to comply before the bear mace comes out, and I'm terribly sorry but I'll be forced to shoot you dead if you interfere. That's perfectly acceptable behavior, right? (not a real threat, simply an example of what you claim is OK for you to do)

Goly, you mean a cop who's stopped by other cops might not have a problem (because you say first and foremost 'hey guys, I'm also a cop'). Well, I guess that makes all this insane violent abuse just fine then, so sorry to have complained about it.

You've heard MANY instances of sifters being arrested improperly, you discount them all or completely ignore them. I'll repeat just one of mine for you....again.
Pulled out of my car at gunpoint, violently thrown to the ground and jumped on, then handcuffed/arrested. (I was FULLY compliant with all directions given.) All that happened because the cop read my clean, well lit license plate wrong and then wrongly assumed my car was stolen. No apology when he realized his mistake, only threats that he 'knew where I lived now' if I reported his actions...which I did. Lucky for all he was just 'bluffing' with his threat, or I might be in prison still for shooting a cop in my home.

What we need are far more prosecutors that are willing to hit cops with the full power of law EVERY time they are criminal, or even appear criminal. Those cops need to go into gen pop in prison and live with the full consequences of their actions, not get separated into a special 'prison' for cops with special rights, cells, privileges, food, and far less abuse by jailers and other prisoners...that's not real prison. It's almost like club fed.

You apparently think those are the two choices....either bend over and take it up the ass by criminal cops that are liars (bluffers), thugs, thieves, and murderers OR live in Mad Max times with no cops at all. It's incredibly sad and telling that you can't see the third option, of hold cops to at least the same legal standards private citizens are held to (or higher) and insist they work FOR their community and it's residents (even the black one's) instead of against it, and PROSECUTE them when they violate those standards. To you that's ridiculous, to us it's necessary.

lantern53 said:

Would have been instructive if the reporter had asked the officer or the chief to give their version of the events.

Pepper spray is not deadly, it's a nasty irritant. If the kid had followed directions, he would not have been pepper-sprayed.

I've been stopped numerous times by the police for traffic infractions and never once have I had a problem. My brother who used to drive OTR semis got stopped frequently and has never been arrested, never had his windows busted out.

If anyone viewing this website has had their windows busted out or gotten arrested for something improperly, I'd like to hear it.

What this country needs is a one day blue-flu, and we'll see what happens when everything is legal.

Seat belt violatiation ends w/ Police Smash Window and Taser

newtboy says...

Perhaps, but they have not ordered that you can search them all without cause, or question them, only put them where you can see their actions for safety.
Your second sentence does not make sense. If you have no reason to believe the passenger is a criminal (and not knowing is not a reason to believe they are) you have no right to manhandle them, question them, search them, or detain them.
This is always your advice, just bend over and take it up the ass, and don't expect a reach around or a 'thank you'. If a cop stopped you, you must be a piece of shit criminal that deserves the inhuman treatment you will get.
My suggestion is to respond with "am I under arrest" and "am I free to leave" and NOTHING else...and to have it all on tape so the officers can't just lie about what happened, which they tend to do if they can't be irrefutably disputed (and even when it can).

lantern53 said:

The courts have ruled that police officers can order all passengers out of a vehicle during a traffic stop.

You don't know if there is a wanted person indicated on the vehicle registration because this video only shows one side.

I would advise you to get out of the car if ordered and you can avoid all of this unpleasantness.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists