I'm disappointed in him.
Bees are in trouble. We're in trouble without bees. Don't go killing bee hives because they're a minor inconvenience to you, please.

He saw there was a hive in the tree before he cut it, no way around that, the bees were flying in and out right in his face. I can't figure out why he didn't -1)put on a bee suit 2) use some smoke to calm them 3) wait for a cooler time of day when they're calm to do the cutting and/or 4) (best idea) call a local bee keeper to come remove them. You can almost always get one to come for free if it's really bees and not wasps or hornets, most extermination companies will know at least one.

Also, it seemed he cut right through the hive without any effort to keep it intact. That was a guarantee of an angry swarm (how would you react to a chain saw cutting your home in half?) and a likely hood that the entire colony will die. He really should have knocked on it to find the hollow part and made the cut lower and used rope to lower the entire hive.

My first bee hive was just such a hive that someone properly cut out of their tree in one piece, and it lasted me years before the chunk of wood rotted and they swarmed. I didn't even have a suit when I got it, so I just went at sunrise to collect it, and hardly lost a bee and didn't get stung moving it about 40 miles!

This hive could have been saved with minimal effort and way fewer stings, so in a way I'm glad he got the instant karma for destroying it, but I'm still sad that saving the bees is apparently not on most people's minds, not even arborists.

DON'T KILL BEES PEOPLE. Without them we'll starve.

Giving the benefit of the doubt that the cat wasn't thrown...

Entirely possible the cat (or the dog) hollowed out the snow previously, and the cat, leaping at the snow as if it were a couch, flew through the weak area.

Although id like to believe it, It does seem staged as the snow width seems quite thick when viewing through the door(:03). The light coming through the area where the cat breaks through makes me think it was hollowed out before the cat, was i assume, tossed through

Oh man, I've been watching their other videos...
These guys seem to have an approach that's very effective for the people they're dealing with. And they're some of the calmest and bravest people you'll ever see.

I've learned one thing though; I could never live in Russia. There is one type of aggressive, hollow, bullying personality that is my personal nemesis. It turns my brain inside out and sets my adrenaline pumping like nothing else. In these videos, you see it over and over and over again. My worst nightmare encounter appears to be fairly common in Russia.

I'm surprised he glosses over Israel's supposed right to expand land through military conquest. That's what perpetuates this conflict, civilian settlement in West Bank land with evictions of current Palestians using dodgy means.

The argument that the occupation is about security concerns is clearly hollow, it's been a process of gradual civilian settlement with the intent of the West Bank becoming part of Israel de facto for decades.

The trouble is, Arab population growth in both Israel and the West Bank will continue to outpace that of Jews and instead it will soon become an apartheid regime increasingly at conflict with itself.

It looks like an O'Neill colony (or A.C.Clarke's Rama), but on Erik Wernquist's web page, it says this is a large asteroid hollowed out (7 km internal diameter) and spun up to provide artificial gravity. It would need to be a strong asteroid to hold together - but that would also make it hard to hollow out. Interesting concept. Who knows what wonders may be possible in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder

http://www.erikwernquist.com/wanderers/gallery_terrarium.html

Oh Shiny....SOOO much and so large a failure of fact here....
A quick science fact for YOU....(cut and pasted from Google)

How many of earth's moon would fit inside the sun if it were hollow?

Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles. The moon and the sun are both spheres, and math tells us how to relate the volume inside a sphere to its radius. I don't know how much math you have done, so let me just tell you the answer and you can maybe ask your teacher for more information. The answer is that you could get about 64.3 million moons inside the Sun if it were hollow.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

I must also tell you, being able to say "we don't know exactly" about what happened BEFORE the big bang is no where near 'faith'...'faith' is making up some BS and claiming 'See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real, you're just deluding yourself that they're all tiny. Just because you (along with everyone else) has never SEEN a giant one means nothing, my book said they're real, so they're real'. Science says 'we've never seen a giant bean stalk, ever, and genetics and physics tell us they never can exist'. The 'faithful' then say 'science is wrong and delusional and ignores all our evidence of giant bean stalks...namely the stories in our book, and look, I found this large bean, it's proof that there are GIANT beans out there.'. If you don't 'believe' the book is 'true', it's useless as 'proof'. Just consider all the other 'holy' books you discount...that's how I see ALL holy books. I only took it one step farther than you, though, before you think differently.

And for what purpose? Are they making really strong socks?
That's an awfully wide/hollow braid.
And from the design of the machine, they couldn't make it very long as that bar is pulling outwards, it couldn't go out forever, a meter or two at the most. (Not to mention the small spools.)

I'm pretty sure the future intentions for this technology is to have a printer you can move to the site, and it would build the entire house structure over several days.

But of course this still needs a lot of work... those walls look terrible and rough as hell, and they're almost completely hollow, so unless they filled it with insulating foam, the thermal properties of the building must suck.

IF this type of technology reaches the point where it can build houses as good as a regular one, AND it can also reduce the price by a good chunk... then it will have a huge impact on construction. This and also the pre-built structure format. Let's not forget the chinese built a 30 story hotel in just 15 days, two years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY

Have seen the hollow face illusion before, but that dragon was great!

Very true, you just cover one eye to appreciate it, then it's awesome. It's a version of the hollow-face illusion. If you've never made a little Gathering for Gardner paper dragon, it's so worth it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-Face_illusion

I know, why not give moderating powers wholly to the sifters who swing the lowest-hanging sack of hollow, worm-ravaged nuts inhabiting the most struggling of fruit-bearing trees in the orchard at any-given-time as an homage to all insect species of the entire planet? That's an easy-out and it saves on the effort and drain of pesticide costs, yeah??

This said in the spirit of tongue-in-cheek, powers to play here commensurate with efforts to enhance and expand the video content rather than involvement lopsidedly focused upon popping-spit and clicking up or down (as always, more down please) would be best bestowed quickly to keep the rabble form thinking too fondly of themselves..The preceding message is to most of you "P's" who chime-in incessantly, frequent the place, but contribute very little eye-soul-essence candy.

We love you anyhow, go find some cool shit for us to watch why dontchas??

Fun fact: those fangs are also hollow and inject poison. Have fun with your blood worms, kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycera_%28genus%29

I'll try again at a point-by-point answer for yas but geez man, you seem thicker than most.

I CHOSE to pester your banning-manner repeatedly because you were cold-hearted and in-general, the matter-of-fact un-welcomingly rude person to potentials who obviously either had some language-barriers some of them, while others simply did not read the long-winded faq-sheet buried in that un-intutive portion of the site map (notwithstanding, MOST of the fuckers you ban are spamtacular and obviously not giving a damn an anyhow....GOOD JOB. ATTA-BOY. Clean the place up, not slighting you for that aspect of your fun here).

Your didactic reasoning supports your hollow assumptions (if such feeble tripe could be called that) and here in these latest and repeated insults and accusations concerning myself all we see are petulant forays into your own limitations in the realm of deductive reasoning at best, or 180 degrees off-kilter at their crudest and worst. MEANING, your assumptions of my legal status and sexual proclivities in particular, as you struggle at what seems justification for your delusional rants. You're basically unilaterally seeking to defame my personal integrity and character because you feel bad about me having poked you so much about yer ban-user fun here.m Real simple. Not too much thinking required, and you are over-thinking to stroke your own, knight-in-rusty-sheriff's-badge honor, plain and fucking simple.

I tried the last comment to show you your misinterpretation of meaning by using the definition of 'haitus', the same which has no fixedm limitation other than that of the will of the vacationer. Read a fucking dictionary maybe, with a view to meaning rather than the view of how it suits your own confabulation?

I didn't say did I, that I was taking anything but a hiatus, which could be long or short....and if you know me at all you know I won't stand for insolent crackers who in my absence, with a personal hard-on to burn me and shit all over my work and time logged here on this site, one of which I have been on since near it's inception, ya thick lump?. Did you think I'd let the place pull a kronospissant on me again? From the likes of who?! You may want to get a fucking clue.

You need some some growin'-up there fatwa (look it up) if ya think my skin ain't thicker than yer skull.

You take shit to pedantically literal to be hanging your shit in my store and expecting me to take you anything more than a seriously misanthropic humanoid.

Tired of being polite with you chicco, yer obviously in need of some quality human interaction and maybe some therapy to deal with the Aspberger's, unless yer dysfunction be something simpler to counterman. I am unqualified to determine such as, "I Am Not A Mental Health Professional."

Ain't 'private' anymore either, your shit screams abuse of the site, for all to see.

My head hurts too much to read the paper right now, but I suspect that most of this can be attributed to learning, and that a 'causal understanding' is not being demonstrated here.

The important figure to look at here is Fig 3, specifically the first trial in figure 3, before the crows had a change to learn each particular task. Performance is, slightly, better than chance for each task except tasks D and F. But these are NOT naive birds. There are only 6 crows used in this experiment, and before the experiment they were all trained to perform a water displacement task for food reward. The better than chance performance on the first trial for some of the tasks could, and probably is, a result of the similarity between the 'correct' choice in that task and the training condition.
A: A water filled tube is more like the water filled tube in the training condition, than is a sand filled tube.
B: Heavy blocks are more like the heavy stones used in the training condition than are the light blocks.
C: Solid black weights are more like the black stones used in the training condition than are the hollow cages.
E: A nearly full tube is more similar to the training condition (which took only two stones to reach the food) than a nearly empty tube.
Tasks D and F, where the crows did not perform better than chance, have choices much more difficult to distinguish from the training condition (with both choices in F being nearly identical to the training condition).
What's more, the sample size is tiny, with a max of 6 birds for any task, and only 4 of these same (very experienced) birds for tasks E and F. You cannot do meaningful statistics with a sample size of 4.
If someone who has actually read the whole paper wants to show me how I'm wrong please do. Until then, I think the editors at PLoS ONE need to be more careful with their choice of reviewers. The journal, although noble in it's stated mission, is still young, and its reputation is still fragile.
"Our results indicate that New Caledonian crows possess a sophisticated, but incomplete, understanding of the causal properties of displacement, rivalling that of 5–7 year old children." How on earth did they let that pass! They know the press will have a field-day with misleading statements like that.