I’ve grown tired having Hannah’s astroturfers using this post as a platform to spew their drivel. Therefore, I’ve removed all comments and have disabled commenting on this post.
Hannah is an Oregon company that offers pet adoption and care services to Oregon residents. I’d originally heard of them through their radio spots where they advertise what seems to be their main shtick – Total Lifetime Care.
According to the ads, the Total Lifetime Care program will provide you with all the care your pet needs for a small monthly fee. The video below sums up the program rather succinctly (if a bit unnervingly given the creepy voice over).
For the purposes of this discussion I’m gong to ignore the fact that the the owner of the pictured Mazda truck ruined it by putting a bumper sticker on the paint and focus on the more egregious infraction (note: we’re also ignoring the dirty windshield the picture was shot through. Drizzle, out of washer fluid, you get the idea).
The bumper sticker in question reads “My other car is a Firefly.” Based on the Firefly reference and the poorly rendered illustration of the spaceship Serenity we can surmise this is a reference to the TV series Serenity.
Ah, so what’s the problem?
First the owner’s other car cannot possibly be a Firefly. Firefly is a class of spaceship, not a freaking car. Kinda a big difference.
Also, and again, Firefly denotes a class of spaceship and is not the name of the ship poorly pictured on the sticker.
A more accurate version of the sticker would read: “My other mode of transportation is a Firefly class spaceship” or “My other mode of transpiration is Serenity.” The last one is doubtful though as I imagine Captain Mal would sooner kick you into Serenity’s engine then give her up.
This sticker, along with its placement (oops, I said wasn’t going to talk about that) is a total fail. If you are going to make a reference to such an icon, get it right.
It has come out that in fact the “Human Bird Wings” videos are a hoax. Jarno Smeets is really Floris Kaayk, a CGI artist. My theory that this was a viral marketing campaign was wrong. Apparently the videos are related to a documentary that Kaayk is working on.
Update – 3/21
I have to admit that it makes me sad to see the following lending credence to this fakery.
GIZMODO all “report” on this story with complete and utter credulity.
Note though that GIZMODO now has an updated story with input from folks at ILM (special effects experts) who agree that it’s fake.
There is a video going around the Net that shows Jarno Smeets, a mechanical engineer, supposedly flying via motorized wings he calls “Human Bird Wings.” The concept is interesting, Smeets supposedly uses an Android phone along with a Wii controller to control the flapping of the wings with his arms.
It’s not a particularly compelling control system from the standpoint of efficiency, comfort, or flight time. I’d imagine that even someone who is fit would only be able to sustain sufficient hand flapping for a few minutes. It’s a completing gimmick though.
Is It Real?
There are a number of people (me included) that are questioning the authenticity of the video showing the “Human Bird Wings” working. While I can’t say with absolute certainty that the video is faked, there are some compelling reasons to believe it is.
Smeets has a video demonstrating the flapping device but it’s curious that outside of the two flight videos this is the only video showing the flapping device working and the wings aren’t even attached. I believe there is a reason for this.
There are two videos that show Smeets attempting to fly the “Human Bird Wings.” The first is of a failed test flight:
Notice that at the 1:51 mark the camera pans down to the ground and then pans back up to at the 1:53 mark, just when Smeets starts his attempt to takeoff. Again, at the 2:21 mark, after Smeets fails to get airborne, the camera again pans to the ground and stays there until a cut (2:27) to the cameraman and crew running towards the craft. Curious.
Up until the 1:53 mark the device looks like it’s physically there in the park. I believe they used a physical model of the craft for the close up shots. What we see from the 1:53 mark to the 2:21 mark is a computer generated model of the craft superimposed on a shot of an empty park. Then at the 2:21 mark the camera pans down and cuts to another shot where the physical (but not functioning) device is used for the close up shot.
The second video shows Smeets actually take off and fly the craft:
The test video was uploaded on Jan 20, 2012 while flight video was uploaded on March 19, 2012. I find it odd that Smeets and his crew seem to be wearing the same clothes in videos that were shot 60 days apart:
It’s curious that the only footage shot from the craft is of the ground. This is probably because that footage is from a camera attached to an RC plane. That’s my guess anyway.
Finally, while there are no odd pans or noticeable cuts, I believe that the video of the flight is faked as well. My guess is that at the 0:20 mark when the crew starts to run towards the camera is when the switch between footage happens. It actually looks like the crew is standing in front of a green screen. Everything from this point on is just a computer model superimposed on footage of empty sky.
I believe both videos are faked. My guess is that Smeets is probably more actor than mechanical engineer, and a model of the “Human Bird Wings” was constructed for close up shots but that all shots of the flight (attempted or otherwise) were done via special effects. My guess is that it’s part of a viral marketing campaign and that GoPro, HTC or both are behind it.
Lastly, from a physics standpoint I don’t think the device would work. If Smeets jumped off a cliff he may glide but I can’t see this device generating enough lift to overcome the weight of the craft and pilot.
The other day the wife-unit showed me a picture of a broom that was standing on its own by its bristles. She said that people were posting them on Facebook saying that it was caused by a phenomenon associated with the Spring Equinox.
A bit dubious, I ran to the laundry room and grabbed a broom. The first broom I tried to balance didn’t work because (I thought) the broom was newish and the bristles were too stiff and it was too small. I went back and grabbed a different broom and tried it. The second broom had a bigger head and is older and more worn than the first. Without too much trouble I was able to get that broom to stand up on its own.
This is not trick photography nor is it “Photoshopped.” The broom is actually standing on its own. The only thing that was done in Photoshop was to re-size the picture so it would fit on the page. You can get the original, complete with EXIF data here.
I had originally thought that the first broom didn’t balance because it was too new and the bristles were to stiff. My theory was that an older more warn broom would have softer bristles that would spread out to support the broom. While this may still be the case, after looking at both brooms, I found that the older broom actually has stiffer bristles than the newer (green) one.
In fact the newer broom (a dollar store special) has significantly softer bristles than the older one; it can’t even support its own weight. I also think that the size of the broom head may play a role in being able to get it to balance. I think you actually need a broom that has bristles stiff enough to hold it up but not so stiff that they don’t spread out to support the broom laterally.
Broom standing seems to be a relativity recent offshoot of the old Equinox egg balancing hoopla. The claim with the eggs is that during the Spring Equinox there is some special gravitational mojo going on that allows one to balance an egg on its end. In reality, with a little trial and error you can get an egg to balance on its own any day of the year. It has noting to do with the Equinox. The standing broom is the same thing. It’s a cheap parlor trick. Noting more.
A few things to keep in mind:
None of the planets, not even the Moon, exert enough gravitational force to cause eggs or brooms to stand on end.
You’ll note that the Spring Equinox for 2012 is March 20th. If broom standing is related to the Equinox how then was I able to get my broom to stand on March 10th?
If you look at my picture above you’ll note that it’s showing the profile of the broom and on the left side you can see bristles sticking out that look to be helping prop the broom up. This might be why all the pictures that I’ve seen show the face of the broom, rather than the profile.
I actually had to work to get the broom to balance. Unlike what many are claiming, it didn’t just stand there when I let go of it, it was more like playing a game of Jenga.
I’ve heard that new brooms work best but I had better success getting an older broom to balance.
I think that this kind of stuff is important to debunk. It’s a fun trick but that’s it. It’s just just a broom balancing on its bristles. There is no need to invoke pseudo-scientific drivel to explain this “phenomenon” and to do so is disingenuous.
I See Your Standing Broom and Raise You A Floating Broom
After I posted my standing broom picture to my Facebook with a short explanation a friend replied: “Call me when you make it float.”
Is there a legitimate reason why label makers leave such a huge margin between the text and the ends of the label; no matter how much text is printed? I’ve seen this on every label maker I’ve used. The one used to make the labels pictured is a Brother PT-1000. You can configure the PT-1000 to use a smaller margin but it still prints the same 1″ tail on either one side of the label. The only thing setting a smaller margin (either 1/2″ or 1/6″) does is print dots as a guide to cut the excess label off.
Seems like an awful waste and a good way to keep label refill sales going strong.
Update: July 27, 2010 – I added an image showing how a label comes out of the PT-1000 with the smallest (1/6″) margin set and corrected an error in the above text.
Companies like Monster Cable were walking a fine line with their high priced analog cables because most people can’t tell the difference between gold plated, gas injected cable and coat hanger. But when the switch to digital started Monster was quick to cross way, way over that line by duping people into thinking they needed an overpriced cable to connect their HD devices. The problems is, HDMI is a digital signal and unlike analog signals (like composite video), it’s either there or it’s not. So, whether you have a $250 cable or a $6 cable your TV is going to look the same.
Fortunately, Adafruit is sending out a replacement overnight (at no cost to me), which is really above and beyond considering that this was a FedEx FAIL and I was a bit of an ass to Adafruit about the issue initially blaming them rather than FedEx.
The subject of this post is a US based Curves Health Club and has nothing to do with the plus size clothing company Dearcurves (dearcurves.com).
After (finally) speaking with the owner I believe that the Curves in question now takes this matter of data security very seriously and that a similar situation will likely not take place. I believe that this was an isolated oversight and that the owners have learned a valuable lesson (i.e. they were scared shitless and will probably be more careful from now on).
I should clear some things up:
Before publishing this I did attempt to contact the Curves in question. My phone call went un-returned.
Beyond the phone numbers and addresses contained in the letters (WordPerfect docs) there was no other data found on the system.
The Curves database was encrypted and NO EFFORT was made to circumvent this encryption; no billing information (if any existed) was exposed.
I was slightly misquoted on The Consumerist – no credit card information was found. My original post pointed out the potential for billing information to be found based off information I read about the iGo software.
The hard drive was wiped (by me) using DBAN and no copies of the original data exist.
Upon request demand of the owner the computer (and hard drive) were returned to them.