Video hosting services?

Google Video is going to cease hosting new videos, so I need a new service to compress and host videos for my classes. Unfortunately Wikipedia's comparison charts of video services doesn't list all the things I want to know about. Here's what I'm looking for; the first few are required characteristics, "preferred" are additional characteristics I really want, and "optional" are bonuses.

1. Unlimited file size (or at least 500MB), unlimited time (or at least 90 min)


2. Cross-platform compatible


3. No additional software required for viewing (things like Java, Flash are ok since most computers have them already)


4. Compresses videos as well as sharing them, so they're faster for students to download on slow internet connections


5. No bandwidth cap, or 1.5GB/week / 8GB/month minimum.


6. Free to me and viewers


7. No account required for viewing (preferred)


8. I can choose not to display my name/account with videos I post (so I can use the same account for personal use) (preferred)


9. I can choose to not allow students to find other videos that I posted (ditto the purpose) (preferred)


10. I can choose to unlist videos I post, so no one but my students with a direct link are likely to find them (for intellectual property reasons) (preferred)


11. Download of video available (preferred)


12. Organization of videos into "folders" so I can post a link to the folder and the student can access all videos for that class in one place, and not the videos for other classes (optional)


13. Tool to upload multiple videos simultaneously (optional)


14. Upload tool allows me to resume paused or interrupted uploads (optional)

Anything else I should be looking for? Who do you like that has these? Google Video had 1-9. YouTube already fails at #1. I started looking at Vimeo and RapidShare, but don't know much about them. Edit: RapidShare seems a bit sketchy, Vimeo has weekly bandwidth limits below what I need.

Bizarre observations from normal videos

There's a couple videos making the rounds right now where a woman observes some natural phenomenon and makes really bizarre conclusions. Although these are posted by two different people, I believe they were originally made by the same person - the rainbow link is a reposting, the Moon one appears to be the original person if you glance at some of her other videos, but I don't see the rainbow among them.

The Rainbow DiHydrogen Monoxide Conspiracy



This was discussed by the Bad Astronomer, and I didn't have the desire to view it then, but will now. If anyone here really does need an explanation of this "freaky unnatural rainbow sprinkler, since light isn't naturally a rainbow," in short, whenever there's a fine mist (such as clouds, or spray from a waterfall, or from a sprinkler) in front of you, and a source of continuum light (usually the Sun) behind you, the light bounces around inside the mist droplets and comes back out as a rainbow. A similar effect can be seen with ice particles in clouds around the Moon at night - since it's ice, the way the light bounces is different so you'll see the ring around the Moon instead of in the opposite direction.

The statement "This cannot be natural, it didn't happen 20 years ago," is simply an indication that 20 years ago she was not as observant as she is now, and in fact if she had been listening in school 30 years ago, she might even know "what the hell is going on".

The Moon is Broken



What's happening to the Moon in this video is known as earthshine. The Moon appears bright because light from the Sun bounces off the Moon and into our eyes. If you were standing on that part of the Moon you'd see a bright Sun in the sky. The other side appears dark usually b/c no light is bouncing off of it. Sometimes we can actually see the "dark" side due to reflected light from the Earth - light from the Sun bounces off the Earth, then off the Moon and into our eyes. If you were standing on the Moon there you'd see a bright Earth in the sky, much like the Full Moon looks bright to us here.

As for her last comment in the video ("The Moon seems awfully low for this time of year"), it's not actually the time of year that matters, it's the phase of the Moon. The crescent Moon is never far from the Sun in the sky, so it makes perfect sense for the waxing crescent Moon to set right after sunset.

While this woman's conclusions are entirely bizarre, I have to applaud her observational skills, and her desire to learn what caused these various effects. There are many more people out there with even more bizarre ideas in their heads, but they never bother to look up or around themselves, and thus have no hope of ever leaving their strange little worlds. This woman at least has a chance.

Science Ads

There is something seriously wrong with science ads these days.

"Boom De Ya Da" (ad for the Discovery Channel)


"epMotion" (ad for Eppendorg automatic pipetting machine)


"'The PCR Song' by Scientists for Better PCR" (ad for Bio-Rad PCR [DNA analysis] machine)

Evolution of a Clock

I believe this is from the same guy who did the white and black evolution demo. In this one, he takes the strawman argument of the "blind watchmaker" and turns it around: the argument is a flawed analogy, as there is no driving force or limiting factors in actual watchmaking the way there is in evolution - random mutations, and natural selection. The author introduces these to factors into a pile of gears and hands, and watches what happens.

As you watch this nearly 10 minute long video, it may help to hover your mouse near the pause button, as some of the text goes by quickly.

The Eye's Evolution

Latest from the National Center for Science Education is a video about the evolution of eye. This video is a very simple explanation of why the irreducible complexity argument for the eye is flawed. The answer: it isn't irreducibly complex!

Is this conscious action?

In the below video (8:28), a visitor at a zoo records an elephant paint a picture, apparently a self-portrait of elephant with flower.



This begs the question to me: is the elephant aware of what she is painting? She definitely is deliberate about her actions, it's not just a case of putting random splotches on a paper that humans then interpret as a picture. But the question is whether she understands that it's a drawing of an elephant, or if to her it's a random pattern of lines that she has learned produces praise from the audience and treats from her keepers. If we saw creativity (that is, variations of the picture), that might lean me towards thinking it's conscious action with understanding, but then again elephants are remarkable creatures and perhaps she is capable of memorizing dozens of patterns that result in rewards.

Paintings are not, in my opinion, reliable Turing tests for animal intelligence.

Evolution Demo

This video demonstrating a simple version of natural selection and evolution is 10 minutes long.



Unfortunately I don't think this video is likely to convince creationists of the veracity of evolution - they will just complain that the code isn't right or something, but perhaps it will make a difference with the fence-sitters.

Mars is Amazing

Why to Take Action

Summary: We can't ever know for sure what the future holds. What we can know is the worst case scenario. If that scenario is bad enough, then we MUST take action to reduce that risk, regardless of what the chances are.



Let's say you're handed a gun with six chambers. You have no clue how many bullets are in the chambers. You are told we have to put the gun to your head and pull the trigger. You have the choice to either (A) do it now, or (B) first pull the trigger once while pointing at the wall, then spin the chamber and point the gun at your head. Which do you do? Of course you should fire at the wall first - if it was an empty chamber you spin it and then point it at yourself, losing nothing; if it was a full chamber you have emptied it, spin it, and then point it at yourself and have gained one additional empty chamber.

What if you were told you could either (A) pull the trigger now, or (B) take 10 lashes, empty one chamber, and then point it at your head? I would still take choice (B). 10 lashes will not kill me. I have no clue how many bullets are in those six chambers, it could be that they're ALL full and my only chance of survival is emptying one of them in exchange for the lashes. It's not worth that risk of my life, so long as the cost (10 lashes) is not enough to kill me either.

That's what this guy is arguing about climate change - even if we had no clue about whether it was happening, the cost of trying to reduce it just in case is so much less than the potential consequences, that we must take that choice.

And there's his various replies here.

Statz Rappin'

Math is less my expertise, but this's still to awesome to not post.



I bet it was a project for a kickass Math class.

Rice Resonance

In the above video, grains of dry rice are placed on a flat sheet that is driven at different frequencies (the text implies that the surface is a speaker, but it could also be done with a metal sheet or somesuch). At certain frequencies (depending on the size, shape, and material) there are spots on the sheet that tend to stand still (nodes) and spots that wave up and down a lot more (anti-nodes) - these key frequencies are called resonances. If a grain of rice lands on a spot that waves up and down a lot, it will be knocked around, but if it lands on a stationary spot it will act just like it was on a normal table surface and stand still. Thus the grains of rice tend to gather around the nodes in the material when at a resonance frequency - as shown by the pretty patterns.

As the frequency changes away from a resonance, all of the material will shake up and down (no nodes exist), and the rice will scatter all over (these are also the times when the person adds more rice). Then it moves into another resonant frequency and the nodes are located in different spots on the sheet, resulting in a different pattern to the rice. There does exist a lowest possible frequency for resonance, presumably the really simple pattern you first see, but there is no theoretical max to the highest resonance state, just technical limits to how fast you can drive the sheet.

Vector Physics - Japanese TV style

For your entertainment, on the page I found it, it said "Vector physics in real life. From 'Trivia no Izumi' (Fountain of Trivia), the same Japanese show that figured out how heavy a fish Dora cat can carry."

For your edification, what's happening is the truck is driving forward (left) at 100km/hr, while the ball is being shot backwards (right) at (-)100km/hr relative to the truck. Note in particular the strobe effect photos of the ball shot from a stationary truck at 1:40, and the ball shot from the moving truck at 3:50. Also note that while the ball falls it drifts forward slightly, this could be due either to a mismatch in velocities or due to drafting (wind following the motion of the truck), and after it impacts the ground it bounces forward significantly, probably due to spin ("English") on the ball or possibly due to drafting (since the video is sped back up we can't tell how fast it's moving forward compared to while it was falling).

Link c/o hitchhiker.

What do teachers make?