Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Quick note on the fingerprinting comment Ross made in the video, maybe this is an aspect of post-9/11 America, but even though I have no criminal record, myself (and the rest of the school) were fingerprinted sometime in elementary school, so it actually is plausible that the murder weapon would have fingerprints that could be linked to Lucas.
  2. As someone with only one functioning eye, the section about poor man's 3D was very: ah yes, the screen here is made of screen. Also, I made some torrent files for the soundtracks in case the Mega links ever go down: sin_soundtrack_hq.torrent heavy_metal_fakk2_soundtrack.torrent Happy whatever-you-celebrate-this-time-of-year folks!
  3. I think the toy gun wasn't a gun that's a toy, but rather a gun that shoots toys, hence why it would kill people/goblins. It also explains why it's a turret-like thing you sit in instead of something hand held.
  4. If uncontrollable laughter is the highest compliment for you, then I want you to know you cause these pretty regularly with me as well. You manage to find, show, and create some of the funniest damn things.
  5. According to all known laws of nature, no, but a quick wiki-skim shows that the concept isn't entirely unheard of, but appears to mostly exist on a microscopic level when it exists at all (wiki). The closest thing to Tails' tails would appear to be Flagellum and I've attached an image from the wiki for reference, the prokaryotic flagellum definitively looks like it could emulate Tails' tails. (wiki).
  6. This doesn't seem too surprising given who owns YouTube, but we also haven't had a true statement from Alphabet regarding whether or not YouTube is actually a profitable business since 2015, which it wasn't at the time (Wall Street Journal, Daily Mail [Sources WSJ]). We do know that YouTube generated $15 billion in ad revenue in 2019 (Verge, Business Insider), but how much is it costing them to host all the content posted to the site? Additionally, we do know that so far this year, there earnings per share (EPS) have on average, been higher than estimated, with a ~5% overestimation for the first quarter of 2020 (Q1), but a 20% underestimation for Q2, so overall they're doing ~15% better than they thought they would be. We'll get an update for Q3 in October (NASDAQ). However, my assumption would be that Google isn't really worried about the profit anymore, at least in regards to community captioning, because, as stated in the article shared by ekket (Orig. Post), "YouTube is not monetizing any transactions that occur on the Amara platform" (Google Support Thread). EDIT: Messed up my contractions.
  7. Recently got one of my favorite third-person shooters from the 2000s era, Freedom Fighters, to replay it again to see if it still holds up.
  8. The only special condition landing inside of a canyon would entail is a narrow field, all the other conditions such as wind (will be effected by canyon walls, but crosswinds would almost entirely be eliminated and they're the most annoying for takeoff or landing anyway), runway condition, aircraft characteristics, etc., but there's no reason an experienced pilot wouldn't be able to perform a narrow landing as long as they had enough straight and smooth enough runway for their plane (narrow grass field landing video).
  9. As long as you have a flat enough and long enough stretch of land, a plane can be landed on it. Many low-cost/private air fields are just flat patches of grass that they mow frequently when in use (video of a standard general aviation plane landing on a well-maintained grass airfield [jump to 4:50]). Any old field can also be used for emergency landings (video of emergency landing on a set of soccer fields [jump to 0:15]), farm fields are commonly used for emergency landings, they're a bit more rough due to the crops and furrows, but a plane typically isn't going to be destroyed by crops unless the pilot is very unlucky or the farmer's growing large, dense plants like watermelons or pumpkins. Furthermore, many pilots just like to explore and will fit larger tires on to their planes in order to land on rougher terrain (video of a "bushwacker" pilot performing short-takeoff and landings on rough terrain).
  10. Tails plane bothers me in a number of ways, because it's not a plane, it's a freaking rocket. There's no evidence of any landing gear or landing skis, so it cannot safely land on neither water, ice, or solid ground. Additionally, the four wing design combined with the jet placement exaggerate this. Whenever Tails enters ground-effect, the bottom wings will experience less drag (the air isn't pushing off the ground necessarily, but rather the wing experiences less drag, rotating the lift-vector, and more effectively utilizing the lift generated [video that explains this graphically]), which means the upper wings will have greater drag, thereby causing a rotational force that naturally pitches the plane upwards. Next, the jet itself is in a precarious situation, the jet is parallel to the direction of travel, this may seem like a good thing at first until you consider where the jet is located, on the bottom of the plane. If the thrust vector of aircraft is below the center of mass, then a rotational force will be applied. There isn't much to the plane, but based on the intake on the front and going off that most airplane fuselages themselves are very lightweight, the center of mass of the plane seems to be above the jet (offset engines can be solved by angling the engines themselves, otherwise known as thrust vectoring). The only way Tails can safely land that plane is if it using a whole airplane parachute system, which actually do exist and Tails plane would be small enough for a parachute system to work (wiki). But all-in-all, Tails isn't flying a plane, it's at best a weird prototype plane with a parachute system, but based on how Tails treats it (by just abandoning it to crash) just reinforces that Tails is flying a freaking missile.
  11. In reference to Tails flying that plane really close to the ground, as dangerous as it definitively is, it can actually be easier to hover a plane close above the ground due to a phenomenon known as ground-effect (wiki) which effectively increases the lift generated at any given speed. This only works when the aircraft is flying very low over an effectively solid mass (the ground or the ocean), but it isn't unheard of for pilots to purposely fly very low as depicted. Some aircraft are even specially designed to fly in ground-effect (wiki). The Russians have several examples of Ekranoplan ground-effect aircraft that were dual-purpose as flying boats (wiki example of Russian Ekanoplan). I've attached an image of a modern ground-effect aircraft flying very low over water for reference.
  12. Bumping an old post here, I would be interested if anyone happens to still have that higher-quality version on the episode on the system. I like to backup great shows to my own media server and a source file would be very desirable. I'd also be willing to seed a torrent of the files indefinitely (as long as my personal server is up, which I plan to keep for as long as possible).
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.