DownThisVideo! - Download videos from YouTube, GoogleVideo, Metacafe, DailyMotion, Vimeo, etc...

[View \| Download]	3D Studio Max Beginners Animation Tutorial - Following a Path By MarcusDesigns 3D Studio Max Beginners Animation Tutorial - Following a Path Tags: 3d, animation, beginners, following, max, path, studio, tutorial 3 Downloads - Last from: (Your Blog here!)
[View \| Download]	Introducing the Pololu 3pi Robot By BenPololu http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product... The Pololu 3pi Robot is a complete, high performance, mobile platform. It excels at line following and maze solving. 3pi Robot Features: - ATmega168 microcontroller programmable in C and C++ on Windows, Linux, and Mac operating systems (Mac support is limited) - Works with several free programming environments such as AVR Studio, WinAVR, and Arduino-0011 - Five infrared reflectance line sensors - A unique power system that runs the motors at a constant 9.25 Volts even as batteries run down - Top speed of 1 m/s - Pololu AVR C/C++ Library to interface with the various components of the 3pi: http://www.pololu.com/docs/0J20 You can get started with programming the 3pi by using the sample line-following and maze-solving programs here: http://www.pololu.com/docs/0J21 You can order the 3pi at: http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product... Tags: 3pi, atmega168, avr, following, line, maze, orangutan, pololu, programming, robot, solving 1 Downloads - Last from: http://downthisvideo.com/ (Your Blog here!)
[View \| Download]	В.Путин.Выступление на Мюнхенской конференции.Part 1 By niknikolay Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.Part 1 February 10, 2007 Munich Выступление и дискуссия на Мюнхенской конференции по вопросам политики безопасности.Part 1 10 февраля 2007 года Мюнхен VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen! I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations. This conferences structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conferences format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there. Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations. This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that security for one is security for all. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger. These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference global crises, global responsibility exemplifies this. Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security. This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international communitys and the worlds agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking. The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either. The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasnt happened in world history? However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority. Incidentally, Russia we are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in todays world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in todays and precisely in todays world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation. Tags: discussion, following, germany, kremlin, minchn, minga, minichn, minkn, minschn, moscow, munchen, munich, münchen, münchn, president, putin, russia, speech, vladimir, безопасности, вопросам, дискуссия, иран, канцлер, конференции, мюнхен, политики, путин, президент, Мюнхенской, Путин, Владимир, Выступление, Германия, сша, рассия 1 Downloads - Last from: (Your Blog here!)
[View \| Download]	В.Путин.Выступление на Мюнхенской конференции.Part 2 By niknikolay Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.Part 2 February 10, 2007 Munich Выступление и дискуссия на Мюнхенской конференции по вопросам политики безопасности.Part 2 10 февраля 2007 года Мюнхен Along with this, what is happening in todays world and we just started to discuss this is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world. And with which results? Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more! Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force military force in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one states legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. The forces dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats though they were also well-known before have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions. Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries Brazil, Russia, India and China surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity. In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states. However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people hundreds and thousands of civilians! Tags: discussio..., following, безопасности, вопросам, дискуссия, иран, канцлер, конференции, мюнхен, политики, путин, президент, Мюнхенской, Выступление, сша, рассия 1 Downloads - Last from: (Your Blog here!)
[View \| Download]	В.Путин.Выступление на Мюнхенской конференции.Part 5 By niknikolay Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.Part 5 February 10, 2007 Munich Выступление и дискуссия на Мюнхенской конференции по вопросам политики безопасности.Part 5 10 февраля 2007 года Мюнхен The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls? Dear ladies and gentlemen! We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons. This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision. The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends. In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities. In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail. We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia and please think about this figure up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples. Tags: discussio..., following, безопасности, вопросам, дискуссия, иран, канцлер, конференции, мюнхен, политики, путин, президент, Мюнхенской, Выступление, сша, рассия 1 Downloads - Last from: (Your Blog here!)
[View \| Download]	В.Путин.Выступление на Мюнхенской конференции.Part 7 By niknikolay Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.Part 7 February 10, 2007 Munich Выступление и дискуссия на Мюнхенской конференции по вопросам политики безопасности.Part 7 10 февраля 2007 года Мюнхен In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often and personally, I very often hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs. In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all. Thank you for your attention. HORST TELTSCHIK: Thank you very much for your important speech. We heard new themes, including the issue of global security architecture one was not in the foreground over the last few years disarmament, arms control, the issue of the NATO-Russian relations, and cooperation in the field of technology. There are still a whole number of questions and Mr President is ready to answer. QUESTION: Dear Mr President, thank you for your speech. I would like to emphasise that the German Bundestag is convinced of Russias importance as Europes partner and of the importance of the role you play. The Federal Chancellor said this in her speech. Proceeding from experience, I would like to mention two issues in your speech. First of all, on your opinion of NATO and NATO expansion, a phenomenon that you consider dangerous for Russia. Would you acknowledge that this phenomenon is, in practice, not expansion but rather the self-determination of democratic states who want this? And that NATO finds it difficult to accept states that do not declare this readiness? You could admit that thanks to NATO expansion eastern borders have become more reliable, more secure. Why are you afraid of democracy? I am convinced that only democratic states can become members of NATO. This stabilises neighbours. About what is happening inside your country. The murder of Anna Politkovskaya was a symbol. One can say that this affects many journalists, makes everybody afraid, and the law on non-governmental organisations also causes alarm. QUESTION: I well understand your comments about non-proliferation. Especially at the end of the Cold War we saw a reduction of the deployment of nuclear weapons, but we also saw increased terrorism. Nuclear materials must be kept away from terrorists. QUESTION: Coming back to the question that was also asked to the Federal Chancellor. What does the future hold for Kosovo and Serbia? What is your opinion of Mr Ahtisaari? How will Russia influence resolving this problem? QUESTION: Can you comment on the experiences of Russian servicemen in Chechnya? And about your comments on energy: you briefly mentioned the market role energy plays in politics. The EU is interested in reaching a partnership agreement that contains fixed policy principles. Are you ready to guarantee reliable energy deliveries, including in the agreement? QUESTION: Mr President, your speech was both sincere and frank. I hope that you understand my frank and direct question. In the 1990s Russian experts actively helped Iran develop missile technologies. Iran now has advanced medium- and long-range missiles that would enable it to strike Russia and part of Europe. They are also working towards placing nuclear warheads on these missiles. Your country has made efforts to negotiate with Iran on this issue and supported the UN Security Council resolution to prevent Iran from carrying out such a policy. My question is as follows: what efforts will Russia make through the UN or otherwise to stop these very serious events in Iran? QUESTION: I am confident that the historians of the future will not describe our conference as one in which the Second Cold War was declared. But they could. You said that it is necessary to put pressure on Iran and to provide positive incentives. But is it not true that Russia is interfering with the process of applying strong pressure through sanctions? Secondly, with regards to deliveries of weapons, Russia is encouraging Iran, especially since these weapons appeared in Lebanon and in Gaza. What are your comments on this? Tags: discussio..., following, безопасности, вопросам, дискуссия, иран, канцлер, конференции, мюнхен, политики, путин, президент, Мюнхенской, Выступление, сша, рассия 1 Downloads - Last from: (Your Blog here!)
[View \| Download]	В.Путин.Выступление на Мюнхенской конференции.Part 3 By niknikolay Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.Part 3 February 10, 2007 Munich Выступление и дискуссия на Мюнхенской конференции по вопросам политики безопасности.Part 3 10 февраля 2007 года Мюнхен But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not. But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law? I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didnt hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms. And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process. Dear ladies and gentlemen! The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue. Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question. It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons. Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration. Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones. In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character. Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems. It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security. Tags: discussio..., following, безопасности, вопросам, дискуссия, иран, канцлер, конференции, мюнхен, политики, путин, президент, Мюнхенской, Выступление, сша, рассия 1 Downloads - Last from: (Your Blog here!)