That shot at 3:43 created an optical illusion for me causing me think the depth was inverted (the way those inverse/hollow reliefs appear to continuously follow your point of view; I'll link if you don't know what I'm talking about).
Anyway, if you can get your eyes to do, quite trippy. It made the river look as though it were perfectly balanced on a long ridge, with the forest falling away down sharp cliffs on either side. I think my eyes were focused on the river at the time.

Reminds me of this cool hack inverting the trope - *related=http://videosift.com/video/Dad-hacks-Donkey-Kong-so-daughter-can-play-as-the-girl

*length=2039

Take a look at these two charts, if you have a minute.

Spain: left scale is GDP (green) and industrial production & construction (black), right scale (inverted!) is unemployment rate (red)

Greece: same data, same scales

Unemployment tracks industrial production & construction in Greece and Spain, as you would expect. And so does GDP in Greece, but not in Spain.

Why?

It's too big a difference to not wonder if someone's fudging the numbers here to make it like austerity did the trick for Spain.

Friends don't let friends play inverted.... http://videosift.com/video/Inverted

Back in the days, Y axis mapping was neither standardised nor adjustable, so many of us went through this back and forth countless times. As a result, it takes me just a few seconds to adjust to an inverted Y axis on an input device.

An inverted X axis on the other hand wrecks my brain in any fast-paced situation.

If you want to experience something similar at home, take a game controller and invert the Y axis in a first person game that you've played a lot. Play until you get the hang of it and then switch back. See how long it takes you to readjust.
You're engaging fewer motor functions but you should feel the bewildering and frustrating sense of everything being backwards and the experience of retuning your brain.

*depth=inverted (but infinite)

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

I'm not sure if I really want to know, but what does an inverted penis look like?

Most of the models we drew in early college were older people, a really fat guy with a strange inverted penis, a black lady with an Asian dragon tattoo, a guy with one arm shorter than the other (we were told not to mention the arm and to try and draw it like a normal arm), a ripped Hispanic guy, a black guy with a pretty big dick, and, wow, the first time they let in a young attractive woman, I was so red in the face.

I was just used to drawing people I was not attracted to. My girlfriend at the time took life drawing, figure drawing, life sculpting, and human anatomy for the artist classes with me every semester so she totally noticed my reaction and was a little flustered by my obviousness. Ahhh, those were the days.

It's actually more fun and interesting to draw older and fatter people. You learn more about the skin and how it changes with varied bodies and age, similar to the draped cloth exercises in a regular old drawing class.

Don't get me wrong, drawing attractive models is awesome, but you don't get as much out of it as a progressing artist. You need to know varied forms, not just the acceptable Hollywood bodies which most people are NOT.

@newtboy
thats why i love you brother!
it is your optimism that i absolutely adore,sincerely.

notice my wording:ideology vs reality.

in the first part of my argument i actually agree with you,though we may use different terms.

i think we may be crossing lines due to verbiage.
when i say "power" i am referring to what is my opinion,a plutocracy,so my argument flows from that perspective.

sheldon wolin makes an excellent example but uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book "democracy incorporated".

you are making an ideological argument that is based on rights SHOULD be protected..in theory,but i do not see play out in reality.if you look at the history of how rights have been obtained over the past 100 years alone you will see that not ONE was ever just offered by our government.each and every one has been hard fought (and died) for.

now moving on to your texas reference,well...i totally agree with you but that is revisionism not indoctrination,at least in the manner in which i am referencing that term.

when i say this video makes a case for indoctrination i say so with my subjective AND objective understandings.
subjectively:i believe that the onus is on the very person,institution or government to prove they have a right to said authority.
objectively:this video...although extremely over-simplified..makes its case that there is a concerted effort to get very young children to tacitly submit to a centralized authority.

now when we consider what education actually IS,and this is not the thread to truly dissect such a complicated and multi-faceted subject but suffice to say,as succinct as i can:
education is the teaching of abilities,to consume data and information in order to come to informed and well-thought out conclusions,to better understand our:world,society and the reality we reside.

to be taught the skills the dissect and disseminate complex problems and the ability to formulate questions which can push boundaries and challenge pre-conceived ideologies.

so with that definition in mind.
how can we be expected to view this than anything other than a ploy to get that young mind to tacitly submit to a central authority?

and this is for 2nd graders? these kids are 8 yrs old!

education should be giving kids the tools to challenge and question not blindly submit.we might as well call the government jesus the way this thing is being taught.

so if you look at a religious family and find how they "indoctrinate" their young children into the ways of the church,then you should have the exact same problem with this tactic.

because the tactics being used are identical.

His last point, the one they dubbed soft authoritarianism, was outlined rather nicely as inverted totalitarianism by Sheldon Wolin.

Well, she's a person with an agreeable form, and I've never ruled women out for their faults, be they inverted breasts, buck teeth or tattoos. Best sex I ever had was with a tatted up buck toothed woman that didn't shave her armpits.

I wouldn't have it playing random or pre-set patterns while driving. I would set the side stripes to my throttle position and the invert of that to braking energy. Something more fun and dynamic.

I have also never seen this 'data' about how windmills are frivolous, and I've looked. All I can ever find are individuals that have no personal knowledge of the systems making unfounded claims. Certainly there are instances of poorly planned 'windfarms' that, because of lack/over abundance of wind don't work properly, or because of regulation and electric company resistance are cost prohibitive. Personal/home units (where they can be erected, and have proper wind conditions) can be great, especially for off grid living. It magnifies the possibilities of a solar system because it generates when the sun isn't out (like when there's a storm) using the same battery system and inverter/converter system the solar uses, so there's little added cost. If you got into solar early enough, the rebates available made the systems a great deal (in some cases, nearly free after the rebate). My system, which cost me a ton of cash, has paid for itself in under 8 years (if you don't consider that electricity rates have gone up considerably since I bought it, if you do count that it was closer to a 6.5 years for full payback, with a minimum 20+ year system lifespan) thanks to rebates and tax breaks...and the systems are far cheaper today than when I bought mine. I've also not lost hundreds (or thousands) of dollars worth of food due to numerous week long power outages, like my neighbors have.
I often consider adding a smallish wind turbine so I have more generation power, especially needed when the power goes out during a storm, which is exactly when a turbine could shine. My issue is jackhole neighbors that would likely not give 'permission' to erect the mast, or would complain about the turbine noise (reasonably or not).
So, in my semi-educated opinion, turbines CAN be a great solution when done right, and can also be economical, especially when compared to the electric company. Of course you can find instances of poor planning making them poor performers, but that's not the norm.