hey

[davipu]

somebody post something worth reading.

[ginoe]

how about this...

motion camouflage

An article in the March issue of the UK magazine Bike added a bit to the understanding of why cars pull out in front of motorcycles. Research on how certain insects attact prey was applied to the SMIDSY crash (sorry mate, I didn't see you).

When attacking, a dragonfly stays directly in the line of sight between its potential dinner and a fixed point in the distance. If dinner moves, the dragonfly alters its path just enough to stay on that line of sight. It doesn't swoop out to "lead" its victim. This tactic has the effect of keeping the dragonfly at the same point in the prey's visual field. Because the prey sees no change in the big picture, it is unaware of the impending attack. This is called motion camouflage.

Motion is difficult to perceive when it is directly along the line of sight. Because the object is stationary relative to the background, an observer doesn't see a change in the overall image and thus isn't cued to the presence of a moving object. Though the object increases in apparent size as it nears, the change goes unnoticed at first--moving from 1000ft distant to 900ft may not affect the image enough trigger a response. A motorcycle is particularly susceptible to motion camouflage because its cross-section area as seen by an observer is much less than that of a larger vehicle.

But as the object gets closer, apparent size increases more rapidly. At constant speed, an approaching object takes the same time to move from 200ft to 100ft as it did from 1000ft to 900ft, but the apparent size increase is greater. Eventually the object seems to grow suddenly in size, and the motion camouflage is broken. This is called the looming effect. According to the Bike article, when an observer is startled by the looming effect, he may freeze in his tracks. If the observer is an oncoming left-turner, he may stop in the middle of the intersection, making a bad situation even worse.

Duncan MacKillop, the riding instructor who related motion camouflage to motorcycling, suggests that diverging from the direct line of sight will break the motion camouflage and get the observer's attention. For example, a driver stopped at a cross-street on your right will be looking left at a slight angle to the path of the road. If you stay to the left of your lane, you will diverge from his line of sight, making yourself more noticeable. But if you're veering right (say, moving from the left to the right lane) you'll be moving along the crossing driver's line of sight, helping to hide your motion against the background.

MacKillop recommends: "I observed a smooth, gentle, single, zig-zag motion, at any point along the line, created a rapid edge movement against the background and destroyed the motion camouflage. Drivers' eyes snapped towards me and they froze the movement I swept left to right and back again."

[davipu]

hey that was worth reading  

[Phaedrus]

I went to the Sterling Renaissance Festival yesterday with a group of friends. It runs for 8 weekends through the Summer up here, about 3 hours away from my hometown.  It was awesome, but not something I knew much about. A lot of poeple were dressed up in renaissance attire, and everyone who worked there did their best to be as authentic as possible. They looked, spoke, and acted the part.

We saw one guy walk a rope while wearing scuba flippers, juggling knives, and playing the harmonica. Haha. And another guy walked a rope while juggling flamed torches. Another guy with a bullwhip was able to snap a piece of hay out of another guy's hand so close it was incredible. I even saw a real life joust! How cool is that?

I have also since developed a new fetish: "renaissance girls". Those girls were hawwwwwwt.  :mrgreen:

I know that wasn't worth reading. But it was worth typing. w00t.

[davipu]

it's the corsets...

[scratch]

Are you just trying to boost your post count over mine?

[davipu]

no why whould I want to be #4?

[davipu]

image rotation ehh?

[scratch]

No, you've just fallen down. Get up and have another beer. Whatchya drinkin', BTW?

[davipu]

mgd cans

[scratch]

I heard, many years ago, that Miller supported anti-ghey goups, and that's why you wouldn't see MGD sold in any ghey establishment.

[davipu]

it was cheep and cold. and in the frige. I don't make the decisions around here.

[ConanLloyd]

Sterling is a fine faire.  I'm at the Maryland faire every year.  It's starting in a few weeks.

Ahhhh wenches! What can I say, I love them so much I married one.  Here's my fair lass and I at the faire.

[Roadstergal]

http://seattle.craigslist.org/about/best/por/83488690.html

[97gs500e]

Sterling is a fine faire.  I'm at the Maryland faire every year.  It's starting in a few weeks.

Ahhhh wenches! What can I say, I love them so much I married one.  Here's my fair lass and I at the faire.

heh heh...

thats a buncha chicken-barf

..queers  :nana:

[indestructibleman]

http://seattle.craigslist.org/about/best/por/83488690.html

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Phaedrus]

I don't care what anyone says, renaissance wenches are hot    

[pandy]

Wenches and faires are great, but I doubled my money in Reno over the weekend.  :nana:

pandy  :mrgreen:    :mrgreen:

[Phaedrus]

Awesome Pandy. I went to a local casino here in NY on Saturday (the renaissance fest was mu sunday activity). I go there a couple times a year, and usually end up breaking even, or a little under, or a little above. I play small amounts though, I'll take no more than $50 and just play the slot machines at $1-$1.50 a wager. A couple times I've won a couple hundred bucks, but I usually either put it right back in to playing or buy myself and my friends I go with a huge dinner..hehe. I go to play and have fun  

My ex's sister won over $4000 once at the casino, and it was on a free play because it was her birthday. The luck!  

[Jake D]

A friend of mine just e-mailed me.  I thought he made an excellent point.  Not to spark some huge political debate, but I want to share.  I have to admit, he's got a good point.  He wrote:

"I watched the movie Red Dawn last nigth for the first time ever. Great flick, all the 80's stars in it as kids, highly reccommended. Anyway, I found the movie to be extremely ironic as it depicts a foreign invader attempting to occupy the U.S. and the actions that these U.S. kids take in retaliation which is to use the females to deliver package bombs and to ambush convoys and use various terrorist/guerilla tactics. As a matter of fact one line in the movie involving a Soviet general even states that this is just like Afganistan, of course referrring to the Soviet conflict in Afganistan in the seventies-eighties. It also depicted the struggle of soldiers fighting on foreign soil and just wanting to go home. I found it to be very appropriate to our current conflict in Iraq. The tactics the locals are taking there is natural human nature. Somebody comes into your country - you want them the f*ck out. You can't really confront them so you resort to every sneaky ploy you can think of to even the playing field. And the soldiers (us in real life) just want to go home but are risking their lives everyday to try to maintain control and order over a hostile population. It gave me some respect for the Iraqi people becasue I feel the actions they are taking currently are human nature and they are not just a cowardly people as I intiitally believed. That being said I am still rooting for the home team and I think we should just rape and pillage over there and crush everything in our way (which was suggested by one Soviet general in the movie that gets killed by Patrick Swayze).
I was very moved. I think all you guys should go rent Red Dawn and watch it. In fact Ithink it should be mandatory that the entire US populace is forced to watch Red Dawn."

Anyway, I thought that was interesting.