Actually, the interface between the positive and negative index regions can be used for viewing. See the attached video in my original post.

In reply to this comment by hatsix:
^ The camera is for viewing the outside world, as it would be impossible to see anything inside the cloaked area (if light bends around your eyes to make you invisible, then it can't go into your eyes so that you can see).
A camera would allow for wide angle, recording, and infrared viewing, vs. looking out with your own eyes.

I need some help with Illustrator or Inkscape. Are you familiar with either of those?

Are you good at computer art? I need some help with Illustrator or Inkscape. I thought you might know something.

Nate

Well, I have been under a lot of pressure recently. For a couple reason, some work and some personal.

The personal reasons are that I found some lumps on my ribs. I had surgery yesterday to remove them and two are benign and the third is going to have to be remove at a later date. Though they think it is also benign, it is also more serious.


Over the same period work has been very rough. My advisor has pretty much been relying almost entirely on me for several projects we are working on. One of which is actually my grant and has a $500K on it. So, a big conference is coming up and I have nothing yet.

Meanwhile the conference is closing in and I have another surgery in a couple days... So I need some help.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Holy shit. Where the hell have you been?

This sounds more like your problem...

Oh, that was a burn.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Actually chogs, it's 540 height X 451 width

Actually, kp, it's 540 width x 451 height

IMHO, there's too much potential for abuse, both intentional and not. E.g., someone may think a video would be better with a slow motion replay, but the original submitter hates them.

And it sounds too complicated a system to get approval for the replacement. If the submitter is available to approve the replacement, they'd probably also be around to do it themselves if you gave them the embed.

And if an unprivileged member's video was replace with a non-approved host embed, the submitter would no longer be able to edit the post as it would "unapproved host" err.

I posted another version of your embed on your sift. You should change it, the one you have the sound is all messed up and the video is grainy.

Thanks. I wonder why it didn't show up in my search.

In reply to this comment by Zeph:
Dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Indian-Nipple-Song

Nough said.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
What can I say - my friends and I talk to each other like that all the time. It's not meant as disrespectful. If I had wanted to be disrespectful or accusatory, I would have written something like, "wtf do you think you're doing?!" and discarded your post.

Seriously, I think this is a really small misunderstanding and not worth the time and energy we've given it. I'm sure we both have more enjoyable things to do than trying to explain ourselves to each other through this nuance poor medium.

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Excuse me... Posting 'wtf dude' absolutely comes across as accusatory.

I am telling that you should have asked me first directly instead posting a link in fashion you did. It is common courtesy Johnny. My point is the results would have been the same and it would not have come across as it did to me.

Like I said, nothing in the video description, title or tags indicated anything specific about the video. Many videos have similar or the same titles and contain different content, something I have seen multiple times.

Nate

Yeah I actually have a video of her...I was thinking about somehow posting it, but it is really pretty silly.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
Don't you just loooove that new puppy smell?

Excuse me... Posting 'wtf dude' absolutely comes across as accusatory.

I am telling that you should have asked me first directly instead posting a link in fashion you did. It is common courtesy Johnny. My point is the results would have been the same and it would not have come across as it did to me.

Like I said, nothing in the video description, title or tags indicated anything specific about the video. Many videos have similar or the same titles and contain different content, something I have seen multiple times.

Nate


In reply to this comment by jonny:
jeez, why so uptight? It's not like I sent it for discussion in sifttalk. I did ask you. I didn't assume anything. (edit: If I had, I would have discarded yours outright, and fixed the original myself.) You tagged a vid as dead, and then posted a potential fix for it as your own. It was close enough that you had used the same title originally. I wasn't suggesting you were trying to be sneaky about it or anything. Just wondering why you didn't fix the original to begin with. You expained why and then fixed the original. What's the problem?

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
To be frank, I am a little annoyed that you didn't ask me first and I feel you assumed the worst there. The outcome would have been the same, and I think it would have been more appropriate.

Nate

In reply to this comment by jonny:
What caught my eye was that you had used the same title originally. Anytime I see a "-1" at the end of video url, I check the original. When I saw that you had called it dead, it just seemed kinda fishy.

Google vids are basically impossible to identify once they've gone dead. It was indeed the same - I remember it being posted. Thanks for fixing the older one. And the tags!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yeah I saw that. There are a couple parody videos out there like this some are not complete. I wasn't sure if it was the same one and nothing in the comments or tags indicated to me that it was the same video or version. And because it was dead I couldn't tell.

Based on your comment, I discarded my submission and fixed his embed code with my videos embed.

I do not think I see anything wrong with this.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
wtf dude?

To be frank, I am a little annoyed that you didn't ask me first and I feel you assumed the worst there. The outcome would have been the same, and I think it would have been more appropriate.

Nate

In reply to this comment by jonny:
What caught my eye was that you had used the same title originally. Anytime I see a "-1" at the end of video url, I check the original. When I saw that you had called it dead, it just seemed kinda fishy.

Google vids are basically impossible to identify once they've gone dead. It was indeed the same - I remember it being posted. Thanks for fixing the older one. And the tags!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Yeah I saw that. There are a couple parody videos out there like this some are not complete. I wasn't sure if it was the same one and nothing in the comments or tags indicated to me that it was the same video or version. And because it was dead I couldn't tell.

Based on your comment, I discarded my submission and fixed his embed code with my videos embed.

I do not think I see anything wrong with this.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
wtf dude?

Yeah I saw that. There are a couple parody videos out there like this some are not complete. I wasn't sure if it was the same one and nothing in the comments or tags indicated to me that it was the same video or version. And because it was dead I couldn't tell.

Based on your comment, I discarded my submission and fixed his embed code with my videos embed.

I do not think I see anything wrong with this.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
wtf dude?

I planted an upvote bomb under your queue...you have been warned.

Did that help?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Can you help me understand this? I feel like I must be missing something, but damned if I can figure it out.

Do you know know what happens when you get to 500?