I know right! my sexy shiny blue face.

Blinded by your shiny new Silver ... you Star you! Congratulations Laurence ... good on ya dude [I could be bilingual too]

Congrats on the shiny silver star

well,i was off drifting in the ether for a bit and what do i come back to?
a super sleek and easily intuitive sift.

my personal page remains unchanged but the front page looks great!
shiny.very very shiny.

i love change.
well done lucky and those who had such great input.

Problem with those is they don't break down quick enough and end up clogging sewer systems if used daily. It's why your parents probably told you never to flush kitchen towel down the toilet either, same problem - just doesn't break down quick enough to prevent blockage.

Toilet paper is designed to avoid this problem (except that waxy shiny toilet paper found in public toilets that probably costs 2 quid for a hundred rolls since nobody wants to buy it).

This boring bit of trivia was brought to you by your local water reprocessing plant!

I like the idea of what you're saying but as far as the ring goes I would look at it this way. Say you build a super weapon, the problem with a super weapon is if anyone else gets their hands on it they could use it on you, so you build it in such a way that it only really works for you. But you make it nice and shiny and encourage would be thieves to use it (sweet! I'm invisible!) so when they do it will quietly call the cops (or Ringrwraiths in this case) when it's logged on to a network like some stolen iphone from hell. Of course you never want them to have any real power, just the promise or illusion of it to keep them on the hook while security tracks down the stolen item, then you can eat them, "raw and wriggling" if that's your preference.

tldr: Actually, games do this all the time, but usually only for water surfaces!

The reason for this is that the way you render a proper reflection is to "flip" the camera to the other side of the reflective surface plane: looking down on a lake, you'd render the water reflection from the point of view of the camera looking up from under the water surface, flipped over. This is called "planar reflection". In order to do this, you render your entire scene again, so it's not cheap. Also, the reflection only works for that one plane: if you had two altitudes of water (or two differently angled mirrors) they'd be on different planes and so you'd have to render a reflection for each one.

You can't render curved surface reflections this way, though. For example it doesn't work on a car (what plane would you flip the camera over?). For that, the trick is called "cubic environment maps". I won't go into the details, but it only really works well for faking reflections on objects since it shows the correct view from a single point. You can create them dynamically for things like racing games, but they require 6 scene renders (one for each face of the cube) for each environment map.

Half Life offered both techniques for water reflections, so one could fire that up and compare them that way.

This demo seemed to use environment maps for the mirrors and I suspect all of the other shiny surfaces.

Note that these techniques are to get detailed reflections: specular lighting (where you don't reflect an image, but instead mathematically simulate simple light bouncing) is easier and cheaper, since it's just math to get a color and strength.

You could do planar reflections for every mirror, but it's a full scene re-render for each one so your frame rate would tank or you'd have to take out other features. Compromises!

Game graphics is all trade-offs and smoke and mirrors: it's our job to fake things and make you think the game is doing sophisticated simulation when actually it's doing as little as it can to get as much as possible.

Congrats on the shiny bronze star

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by xxovercastxx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Shiny-Suds-are-Naughty

@Trancecoach
dude,its a TV show..relax.

i agree that a political argument dressed as scientific debate is a bait and switch that most people miss and buy into the bullshit.take the politics and monied interest out?

well,not much arguing going on.

now the discussions in regards to solutions are in the political realm and that my friend,scares the bejesus out of me.its like asking a crack whore to watch your kids.

how sad and shameful that the most progressive and creative solutions are coming from third world nations.these people crap outside for fucks sake!

but here in the states? too busy texting and facebooking and searching for that next new shiny,because our self worth is wrapped in what we own,what we do for a job,what we drive.we demand respect from everyone yet give none,convinced of our own superiority based on the most thinnest of veneers and baseless of subjective criteria.

we are the assholes of the world.

lets be real for a second.
this video is based on a show.entertainment.
and it plays it way over the top,but its entertaining.
its just a tv show.

i have seen some climate models that predict as early as 2050 shit is going to hit the fan,while others play it around 2100 (that was the IPCC one).all predicting some really nasty global stuff.

we aint gonna make it to 2100.
hell,i would be surprised if we made it to 2050.
because there is something far worse that will affect our societies than climate and thats peak oil.

how come nobody is talking about that?
far worse implications in regards to:food,clothes,jobs,economies did i mention FOOD?
oh,and war..lots and LOTS of war.killings,maimings and murders..oh my.
no arguing the science on that one,thats been in since the late 70's.

where is the debate on a subject that has real and immediate ramifications?

such a failed species.......

Take a look in the mirror, shiny.

My position is backed up by mountains (both methaphorically and literally) of evidence. You have nothing. I've looked at the so-called evidence for a young earth or creationism and I dismissed it almost instantly.

It fails almost every conceivable test of reliable evidence almost instantly. I am not obliged to consider nonsense. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you.

If I tell you the sky is pink and green with a giant picture of Steve Carell on it, I'd want some pretty decent evidence to back that up.

I don't have to "seek out someone who agreed" with me, that is the default position. It is the accepted scientific reality.

Part of the reason, I don't have to continually reassess my acceptance of it is because it makes sense. I don't go around thinking "man, evolution is a cool idea, but I wonder why it doesn't explain X", because it does explain X (where X is any silly creationist nonsense like irreduceable complexity, etc).

So, on one hand we have evolution, which has:
- an elegant, sensible theory
- millions and millions of man hours of study
- ginormous swathes of evidence

and on the other we have creationism, which has:
- some old book said it's true and the same book said the book is true (despite the fact that said book has been wrong time and time again)

Anyway, I'm done here.
Have fun on the wrong side of history; you can take a seat over there beside the flat earthers, the slave-owners and the people that thought non-whites were genetically inferior.

Hi Shiny,
I'm obviously not a biblical scholar, but didn't God lie to Abraham when he said it was a requirement that he sacrifice his son?
I'm fairly certain that's not the only reference to God lying to or misleading (same thing) people, lies of omission are still lies.

I agree completely with shiny.
The evidence for god is similar to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. both completely non-existent.