What if it's done as a health issue? Shaking hands is a major disease vector, and if altering that social behavior just slightly can help us all stay safer, isn't that worth it?
I only fist bump these days. I'm not quite at Howie Mandel level, but I understand him. I always feel that if I'm going to shake your hand, I might as well go ahead and just give you a hug (and probably a pat on the back too), no?
But maybe that's just weird old me. ;-)

I wonder why. Could it be he's actually thinking of the parishioners and trying to not be a vector for spreading herpes and other disease? If so, good for him!
It's well known that the holy water often kept in baptismal founts contain hundreds of diseases from people putting their dirty hands (and dirty children) in it and it never being changed or cleaned. I cringe whenever I see old women (and others) wiping it on their faces!

I'm going to assume that this is the Lorentz force, because it's the principle that involves magnetic and electric fields. But there are setups that can use subtleties of magnetic and electric fields, it can be very complicated. Any physicist rather than astronomer might be able to explain this better... or spot subtleties.

If you notice, it only starts moving once the back magnet has touched the wire. Which i think means that the wire is used to carry the current from the battery, with the magnets providing the magnetic field for the Lorentz force to drive the train. Effectively the force is felt by the electrons travelling in the wire (F = q(E + v x B), x being vector product, cross product), but there is an equal and opposite force to be felt by the 'train'; so it travels along. If you watch, it does look like the wire is responding - i'm pretty sure the small track would have shot off to the right if he hadn't held it, and it moves as the train approaches in the longer track.

So, circuit is set up by the the wire contacting between battery terminals, current flows in a circular fashion (mostly, assuming adjacent loops don't short). Magnetic field will emanate out from the battery on average radially, i assume (this is a simplification but a reasonably safe one), so the resulting cross product - and therefore direction of the force - acts along the remaining perpendicular direction to those, ie. straight up or down the loop depending on which terminal is leading.

If you want to see how that works, you can use the right hand rule. First finger is the direction of the electron's velocity (which is traversing loops so constantly changing in a circular manner), middle finger the direction of magnetic field which always comes out radially from the middle of the coil or track, thumb F the resultant force always points along the loop - make your first finger point in all directions of a circle, keep your middle finger pointing radially out relative to your first finger, and you will notice your thumb always points the same way, no matter how v changes circularly.

It is reasonable to assume that other factors are involved, probably a current is induced into the coil as the battery moves - the battery carries a magnetic field cos of the magnets, so we then have a moving/changing magnetic field in the presence of a wire; it should induce a current which would create a magnetic field in opposition to the field of the magnets.. and so on. But i think the Lorentz force is what provides most of the motion.

There's no such thing as acceleration of just the ball. Everything is relative; there are no fixed bodies. We just ignore the movement of the earth in these things, because as far as approximations go, it makes no practical difference.

They would not cross an imaginary line at the same time, since if the earth is modelled as a perfect sphere, it will be pulled slightly toward the bowling ball (the actual vector being somewhere between them because the feather has a small moment). If there's a 1 degree difference in the drop between the feather and ball, which looks about right for this experiment, this will result in a 1.7% advantage for the bowling ball hitting the earth first from the very slight movement of the earth.

Not only did the german ship seem dangerously close to the bank to begin with, they seem to have overcorrected a massive amount when they had plenty of time to reverse thrust.
At the same time, it didn't seem like the Singapore ship even tried to evade an obvious vector of collision. Crazy.

So, basically, the next Dark Souls.

Which is fine, because I enjoy those games. Character and enemy designs look great, but at this point they're just regurgitating a formula. It looks foreboding, it's probably going to be brutally difficult, there will be some interesting monsters and probably a convoluted, western-style dark fantasy plot. That's the same thing that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 offered to a 'T'.
Someone no one else has ever agreed with me from the game industry is personal reinvention, and I wish consumer demand was more fickle for less repetitive offerings.
I *might* play this, but after 3 games, multiple playthroughs of each (because I loved them so much), I'm pretty much over it. Plus, fuck next gen consoles, I could have gotten another 5 years from the current crop. I expect truly talented developers to innovate when they're lauded for their perceived innovation from past successes. Tackling an entirely different genre in the same way the *Souls games were throwbacks to more unforgiving times, or taking the extremes from the previous entries to completely unexpected heights.
There are so many fucking vectors of unexplored progress in the medium that it never surprises me when industry reports year-over-year declines for half a decade, and infuriates me to the point that I wish it would all just fucking die already, wipe out the failures, and rebuild it with this millenniums version of the NES. It's not even about finding "completely new, unexplored methods of interactive media", because you can continue to build on the genre's that exist with a 4-decade-old toolbox that an entire industry only recognizes the most recently opened drawer of.

Wow... So many great points here.
And lots missed by others.

@ChaosEngine I like you too. But the next posts after yours explains my point better. @Eukelek got the point correctly.
(The fact you don't eat it, or your local farm doesn't grow GM is telling and hypocritical)

There is a massive difference between selection using natural processes and GENETIC ENGINEERING.
One will only produce offspring that are genetically compatible.
The other is a crap shoot producing mixes of different taxonomy.
For fucks sake when could A FARMER BREED A MOUSE WITH A JELLYFISH, or mix SPIDER GENES WITH GOATS.
That shit is fucked up and only the tip of the iceberg.

You really want MONSANTO creating NEW SPECIES OF PLANT THAT ARE STRONGER THAN THEIR NATURAL COUNTERPARTS AND LACED WITH TOXINS AND PESTICIDES ????
It was Monsanto that developed AGENT ORANGE, and PCB's which THEY ALSO DENIED WAS HARMFUL EVEN THOUGH IT IS MASSIVELY CANCER CAUSING. They buried every study showing it was carcinogenic.


@nock . Yes I'm sure the medical profession has even crazier biology going on. But I would only use that shit IF I WAS GOING TO DIE.
NOBODY NEEDS GMO.
Now the medi-corps are using super viruses as vectors for 'custom' dna treatments.
Considering that the U.S. CDC was just admonished for improper practices contains viruses. How long before there is an incident that is completely synthetic (man-made) and completely irreversible.

@RedSky Sure Africa should grow whatever it needs to survive. But don't expect an export market for gmo.

Hey ChoasEngine, yep, you're right on the money. In a normal vector space, the dimensionality is pretty much defined by how many perpendicular (or orthogonal) lines you can have. So to get 7, you'd need a 7 dimensional space.

You can do it other ways, but the most common way of expressing things in a vector space is as multiples of the "standard basis", which is a bunch of lines all perpendicular to each other and one "thing" long, as you describe.

Mathematically speaking, there's nothing particularly interesting about 2, 3 or 7 dimensions, although you'd have a real hard time drawing lines in a 7 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional board.

Incidentally, a hypercube wouldn't cut it as it's only 4 dimensions. Maybe a wonder-mega-super-hypercube?

Yes it does, thats excactly what it does mean. Try standing on the floor spinning around, if you spin fast enough, you'll feel that your arms starts tending towards a jesus-like pose, if you were somehow artificially accellerated to spin around some point in your torso to say a million spins a second, your arms and legs would be pulled outward, and your body would be squeezed more and more and stretched more and more from the center. now You wouldnt actually become a disc, because there wouldnt be anything to stop the centrifugal force from ripping you apart, but in space that center is also the center of mass and gravity, so stuff gets pulled towards the center while the whole thing is spinning, the spinning stuff gets pulled outward from the center of the spinning direction by the spinning, but also kept in orbit because of gravity.

It makes complete sense if you sit down and think about it, there really is nowhere else to go but a disc.

Keep in mind that the movements in the blob at the beginning can be completely random, its just that by chance, there is one way, when all the vectors are added up, that the blob spins more than any other. and that eventually becomes the direction of the planets., because all the other movements cancel out.

Maybe watch it again and pay attention? He said nothing of computer simulations....

In an isolated system (our galaxy) where there is angular momentum (the spinning about the galaxies central axis), the angular momentum is conserved (it never stops spinning with respect to how much mass is in it, and how far from the centre that mass is).

The objects floating above and below that central plane are NOT in an angular momentum vector, just simply moving about in a chaotic motion. Given enough time, these objects will collide, cancelling out their non-plane motions.....

None of this was derived from a computer model, but it does show it in practice near the end by using one.

The distinction is important.

Regarding leg angle and and pooping:
If you do the Butters technique, you have the added benefit of facing a wall which gives you the opportunity of placing your feet up on the wall to improve your colon positioning and leg angle, therefore the straightness of the defecation vector. Caution is necessary, though, as you need to grab onto the toilet to avoid launching yourself backside first from the toilet in a motion resembling a jump from a squatting position. This is especially hazardous during difficult defecation acts involving constipation or any kind of pain. Also, you'd want to avoid to give the expression "skidmarks" a new definition as it might stain the Butters technique irreparably.

That's weird. Vectored thrust?

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

Back in 2009, I saw the model of a vehicle with "full connectivity" during a presentation by an R&D bloke from Audi. Not a model of the car itself, but of the control software. It included a downlink to provide remote access for maintenance, troubleshooting and, most importantly, the reception of position and movement vectors for vehicles in your proximity "to improve safety and traffic flow".

That was before all the fucked up multimedia/social networking bonanza in cars went into high gear, providing an even easier access to the cars systems...

Nice to see him get away from the "insanely twisted" stuff for a while. Looks like traditional cell animation too! (sick of that flash/vector animation).