April 05, 2006
Scientists Find Weird Fish Fossil Way The Fuck Up In Canada
A bunch of
scientists found a weird fish fossil that looks like it might be a transitional species between fish and lizard. Or frog. Or whatever. Between fish and something that crawls or slithers on the land.
When I flew to Europe our plane went over the Hudson Bay. I was amazed at how barren it looked down there. But these scientists were working much farther north than that. In fact, the article says they all carried guns just in case a hungry polar bear came by.
Interestingly, when this fish/lizard was alive, it lived near the equator in the mud of a now non-existent continent called Laurentia. Yeah, 400 million years ago. You gotta love plate tectonics.
Posted by: annika at
01:17 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A transitional species between fish and lizard? That would explain
this.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 06, 2006 04:41 AM (/fbjZ)
Posted by: annika at April 06, 2006 06:22 AM (fxTDF)
3
Are you the type to be offended about anything that conflicts with creationist doctrine? Unlikely, but I had to ask.
Posted by: will at April 07, 2006 08:49 AM (h7Ciu)
4
That angle didn't even occur to me, Will. I guess as a right wing blogger, that's an obvious question, but I really was just interested in the science of the story.
Personally I don't have any problems with evolution. I read Dawkins and it didn't corrupt my mind. I thought he made some interesting points.
Posted by: annika at April 07, 2006 02:30 PM (6Phr2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2006
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
Anyone who
tries this, let me know if it works.
Posted by: annika at
10:02 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ha! Something I haven't seen yet...at least, not on the internet :~)
However, I did do something similar while in high school, but it only used one fly and yeah, it worked like a charm.
Posted by: Victor at March 29, 2006 06:06 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 26, 2006
First Woman Osprey Pilot
Congratulations to Captain Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC. She's the first woman to take on the very tricky V-22 Osprey aircraft. Good luck to her.
She sounds like she has the right stuff.Captain Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah spent the first five and a half years of her career in the Marine Corps as a CH-46E “Sea Knight” pilot, but when Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron-263 began transitioning to the Osprey Program while she was stationed there, she became one of the first female pilots to begin training on the controls of the tiltrotor aircraft.
. . .
“She’s going to go a long way because she never quits. She can succeed at anything she puts her mind to,” said Okoreeh-Baah’s father, Isaac K. Okoreeh-Baah Sr., a native of Ghana, North Africa. “She gets that from me, I think.”
The controversial Osprey is supposed to take off like a helicopter and then fly like an airplane by tilting its huge propellers forward.
Here's some cool video of the Osprey in action.
Before the Osprey, there was always a trade off between fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. The spinning blades of a helicopter make it inherently slower than a regular airplane, with a shorter range and a lower top altitude. But fixed wings need a runway. The Osprey gives you get the best of both worlds: the speed, range and ceiling of an airplane, plus the vertical take-off and hovering capability of a helicopter. The V-22 is designed to replace the big dual rotor CH-46 Sea Knight, which has been around since 1960.
The Osprey is controversial because the military spent a lot of money on it and then it started crashing. A lot. There was a time when the DoD wanted to cancel the program. All I know is when I tried flying my dad's computer game Osprey, I kept crashing it. So I've not always been a fan of the plane (or helicopter, or whatever).
The 1986 estimated cost of a single V-22 was about $24 million with a projected 923 to be built. The first Bush administration cancelled the project in April 1989, by which time the cost of a single craft was estimated at $35 million. However, Congress continued to allocate funding for the program in a November 1989 authorization. Throughout Secretary of Defense Richard B. CheneyÂ’s tenure, he and Congress wrestled over the question of the V-22 as he felt the project would cost more than the amount appropriated. Eventually he relented, proposing that $1.5 billion be spent in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop the project. The arrival of the Clinton administration into the White House in 1992 provided new support for the program.
Osprey crashes have resulted in 30 deaths. No one died in a June 11, 1991, Osprey crash, but a crash July 20, 1992, in Virginia killed three Marines and four civilians. The Osprey was grounded for 11 months after this crash. A crash in Arizona April 8, 2000, killed 19 Marines, grounding the aircraft for two months. Another crash in North Carolina Dec. 11 of the same year killed four Marines. After the December crash, the Osprey was grounded until May 29, 2002.
One of the crashes was caused by something called "vortex ring state," which happens when a helicopter descends through its own air turbulence. To correct this, Osprey pilots are supposed to descend slowly, although some say that Ospreys should be able to descend faster than conventional helicopters.
Supposedly all the bugs have been worked out. So I'll keep my fingers crossed, and hope that the Osprey lives up to its promise.
Posted by: annika at
09:36 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.
1
My brother-in-law, a Lt. Col USMC (ret) helio pilot had a hand in the development phase of this aircraft.
He said it was frightening to fly every time and apparently all the pilots were pretty brave to take it up and happy as Hell to get it down safely.
My niece, now a full Lt. in Naval Intelligence, was stationed on a LHD (which carries a complement of helios and Ospreys) during the invasion of Iraq and did a lot of vectoring (controlling) of these. She says they have their uses but are not the pilot's favorite by a long shot.
People who fly them are among the bravest.
Posted by: shelly at March 26, 2006 12:06 PM (BJYNn)
2
I agree with the courage of the pilots of military aircraft of any stripe. When I was in Thailand during the Christmas bombings I talked to a B52 pilot and he told me how hard those beasts were to fly. The only thing I could add to Shelly's opinion is that the Harrier was much more dangerous and had a huge fatality rate, as I recall something like 3 times higher than the next highest a/c. I wish my fellow marines were asked to be less couragous.
Posted by: Drake Steel at March 26, 2006 02:08 PM (MIaSv)
3
The qualifications for being a Naval Aviator, which Marine wingnuts are, are very stringent. One must have good eyes, lightning reflexes, be smart enough to do the job, and be dumb enough to do the job.
I lived through both the AV-8B, and CH-53E deployments, and even personally knew some of the dead. A pretty good friend of mine was an F-18 squadron maintenance officer in the early '90s, and I remember the look of fear on his face before heading out to take a problem child out for a check ride. Shit, he had three kids. It's the old story, if it's got wings, rotors, tits, or tires, it'll give you problems.
As for the spit-tail rotor-head, I hope that neither I nor mine are customers. When in need, I don't want the bull-dyke fireman, 98 lb copette, or pilot without all the skills. One of the skills is the ego to do the job, whether you can or not, and it's not a female trait.
Posted by: Casca at March 27, 2006 08:42 AM (y9m6I)
4
Interestingly enough, I was reading that they had somekind of accident with one of the MV-22's. No one was killed or injured.
Posted by: Drake Steel at March 28, 2006 05:39 AM (MIaSv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 25, 2006
This Is How They Get Ya
I saw no reason to want a video Ipod, until I discovered that there is a "Strong Bad Email" video podcast. Now I
must have one.
Dammit!
Posted by: annika at
07:46 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Come on fhqwhgads! Everybody to the limit!
Posted by: The Law Fairy at March 25, 2006 08:07 AM (954g7)
2
Who the hell keeps voting for Frenchie in your "Jason Bourne vs. Leon" poll? WHO?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 25, 2006 08:46 AM (1PcL3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 17, 2006
New Boys' Toy
Best
quote: "I thought this thing was sick."
Have fun guys!
Posted by: annika at
06:38 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Homina-homina-homina-homina . . .
[uhhhHHH]
[sigh]
I'm going to take a nap now.
Posted by: Matt at March 17, 2006 07:09 AM (10G2T)
2
Hugo isn't gonna like it. I wouldn't mind getting one to keep the neighborhood vermin in check.
Posted by: d-rod at March 17, 2006 07:13 AM (k9puX)
3
This thing is phallic. There's nothing like having a bigger, faster, more powerful, more accurate weapon. You lug it around with pride. You yearn for opportunities to deploy it.
“You can put six rounds on target in under three seconds,” Flanery said. “I thought this thing was sick.”
Posted by: gcotharn at March 17, 2006 10:15 AM (3Sbj7)
4
Yeah, the 203 always was a worthless piece of shit. It's about time our grenadiers had some firepower. Now if we only still had the flechette round.
Posted by: Casca at March 17, 2006 12:09 PM (y9m6I)
5
Yup, gotta agree with Casca, the 203 was a real piece of shit. You couldn't interdict a coca sack laden burro led by a ten year old in the Columbian highlands with it. I once fired one at a platoon leader in Granada and he still rode the wave on to the beach.
Real crap piece of hardware.
My fingers statred twitching when I read the piece on the M-32.
Posted by: Strawman at March 17, 2006 04:10 PM (0ZdtC)
6
Go away ya draft dodgin' shitstain.
Posted by: Casca at March 17, 2006 04:36 PM (2gORp)
7
The forerunner of this weapon can be seen on the old Christopher Walken movie Dogs of War. But it looks like this one has a higher rate of fire, and is more accurate. (Although you don't have to be too accurate with 40mm greandes)
Posted by: Kyle N at March 18, 2006 04:52 AM (FBJ4S)
8
Nice one Casca. You're such a good advert for the military mind
ne step above a prokaryote.
Posted by: Strawman at March 19, 2006 01:09 PM (0ZdtC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 05, 2006
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
The Robotic Mule.
Wanna bet the second generation will kick back?
Posted by: annika at
10:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The mule kicks ass.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 05, 2006 10:55 PM (TDwc6)
2
All I can say was already said by by ROFL: "it looks like a couple of Russians dancing."
Posted by: Mark W at March 07, 2006 06:35 AM (yTuVc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 15, 2006
Plane Crash In Roseville, 2.0
Sheesh, I'm taking unexpected criticism for my "fuel feed problems" statement in
my post about the Glasair II crash in Roseville. The manufacturers' reps must be trolling the web. Here's some clarifying points to remember.
- I never said that the Roseville crash was due to a product defect. Obviously, I have no idea and if I had to guess, I'd blame pilot error first.
- Just as obvious, if the pilot was indeed doing aerobatics over a populated area, he would have been clearly negligent.
- One thing that should be investigated is how many hours that particular plane had been flying. There is a rule that you cannot have passengers in an experimental plane until a certain amount of flight time has been logged. I can't remember the requirement, maybe some of you know it.
- Perhaps I should have said fuel feed "challenges" instead of "problems." But, come on. There is a difference between low wing and high wing aircraft fuel systems. The difference is gravity. On a low wing plane, fuel has to be pumped to the engine. If air gets in the line the engine could die. The danger is magnified if the plane is doing stunts. I'm certainly no expert, but I did learn that to prevent cavitation in the fuel lines, tolerances have to be exact throughout the system. Also, some low wing planes do not allow a "both" setting on their fuel selector switch.
- It may be that kit planes are made with higher quality materials, as one commenter said. That's not my beef. I would much rather be in a plane that was mass produced, since there's a greater likelihood that any design problems will have been previously discovered by some other sucker, and not me. Also, I would expect quality control to be somewhat better at a factory than in Joe Blow's back yard.
That is all. Have at it.
Posted by: annika at
10:35 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ever since the cable got hooked up again (its been a while) I have been watching these aircraft shows on the history and military channels nonstop. its really got me curious on what exactly the sound barrier is, like why is there such a thing.
anyways i liked this line:
"I'm certainly no expert, but I did learn that to prevent cavitation in the fuel lines, tolerances have to be exact throughout the system." i've never even heard of cavitation before!
Posted by: Scof at February 16, 2006 08:36 AM (a3fqn)
2
Sorry to be coming to this late, I just wanted to talk about the high vs low wing fuel feed problems. Most new piston engine aircraft use a fuel injection system and thus require a pump to pressurize the fuel. Even the models that use a carburetor require some pressure (but less than the fuel-injected models,) and also require a pump. Some of the older radial engines that used carburetors didn't need that much fuel pressure to function and thus could get away with being gravity fed, but all new carburetors do need a pump.
This doesn't mean that there aren't issues between high and low wing aircraft, but that's not related to this discussion and I'm an engine guy not an aeronautics guy.
Posted by: Trevor at February 16, 2006 04:17 PM (GtBBB)
3
Welcome to an early introduction to your future profession!
I had once entertained building a kit plane with 3 other coworkers (engineers), though when the project changed, and they were reassigned, I let that whim pass.
http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airmodel.html
Glassairs have been around for some time and actually have a fairly good reputation. But you are right, someone who is doing this for the first time runs the risk of making simple mistakes that can prove fatal. That's one reason I let that whim go.
Posted by: skye at February 17, 2006 06:06 AM (GzvlQ)
4
No more DwtS liveblogging?
Posted by: Victor at February 17, 2006 06:19 AM (L3qPK)
5
Eh, it's like anything else. Pay attention to the little things, and the big things take care of themselves. As someone pointed out, the only reason these experimental designations exists is because lawyers destroyed the low end private aviation industry through litigation. It is a euphemism to escape liability.
The reason we like Cheney? He shoots lawyers!
Posted by: Casca at February 17, 2006 06:54 AM (y9m6I)
6
OMG, your best work ever!
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 06:20 AM (2gORp)
7
The reason we like Cheney? He shoots lawyers!
Casca, didn't you learn anything in the corps?
Just shooting them is not sufficient, especially with just BB's.
You gotta track 'em down and finish 'em off, or no trophy.
Ask Kerry; he takes the wounded and blows them away from behind. Gets you the bronze star and a purple heart with an oak leaf cluster.
Posted by: shelly at February 18, 2006 09:43 AM (BJYNn)
8
I love the AnniKournikova photoshop and the Casca part too.
The trolls are fapping as we speak.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 18, 2006 10:00 AM (K9tdw)
Posted by: annika at February 18, 2006 11:05 AM (dH2gm)
10
Casca gets a mention on the cover?
CASCA?!?!?!
That bites.
Posted by: Victor at February 18, 2006 12:07 PM (l+W8Z)
11
I know. I just wanted an excuse to spell "Annikarnikova".
I've also been dying to say "Annikus Finch", but haven't found the right occasion yet.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 18, 2006 01:09 PM (K9tdw)
Posted by: annika at February 18, 2006 02:12 PM (1K/zG)
13
"Make Casca your Bitch"
LMAO!
Posted by: d-rod at February 18, 2006 04:33 PM (9/t+R)
14
Casca is only bitch to one.
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 06:58 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 12, 2006
Plane Crash In Roseville
A plane crashed into a house in Roseville, northeast of Sacramento today. From
the video, it looks like a missile strike. The house is toast. Four people are feared dead, including possibly two inside the house.
The aircraft was a Glasair II, low-wing experimental kit plane. As a law clerk, I worked peripherally on a case involving the crash of a kit plane very similar to the Glasair II. Due to client confidentiality, I can't get into the specifics of the case. But suffice to say, you'd never catch me getting into one of them kit planes.
I don't know what possesses pilots to build their own plane when there are plenty of reliable manufacturers out there. Especially a low-wing plane with it's inherent fuel feed problems. Today's crash occurred after witnesses say the pilot was doing some aerobatics. Not smart over a populated area like Roseville.
Posted by: annika at
03:31 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm a high-wing guy myself, but of course there are lots of production airplanes out there with low wings and safety records comparable to the high wings. One advantage of low-wing is supposed to be better crosswind handling.
Posted by: David Foster at February 12, 2006 05:14 PM (/Z304)
2
I monitor a blog called Roseville Conservative (it's on my blogroll), but so far it hasn't said anything about the incident.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2006 09:09 PM (62+YC)
3
That's right, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.
Posted by: Casca at February 12, 2006 10:54 PM (2gORp)
4
This is funny. Lawyers pretty much killed general aviation in the US in the late 70's to early 80's - driving the price of a new Cessna 152 from about 15K to probably close to 100K due to "product liability" lawsuits against the airplane manufacturers because, horrors, airplanes sometimes crash...
There are really very few manufacturers left.
And we've all got to go somehow. So I can't get too worked up about somebody doing himself in in a kit plane. But the acrobatics over a populated area is wrong.
Posted by: MarkD at February 13, 2006 09:06 AM (oQofX)
5
Some pretty poor judgment was used by the pilot - it would appear at least four FARs (regulations) were violated. As a pilot and sometime aircraft builder, I am saddened by the apparent recklessness and awful outcome. It doesn't appear that the aircraft was at fault, and I believe the NTSB will fully validate this.
I wonder if you'll blog on the NTSB report when it comes out. It seems to me that it would be equally poor judgment if someone let you into their airplane.
Somehow the majority of aircraft in the world, being low-wing aircraft, seem to have solved the fuel feed problem? Perhaps it's just a problem for attorneys and law clerks?
Posted by: avboy at February 14, 2006 08:32 AM (eRFyD)
6
First off, Dont jump to conclusions that the plane is to blame. Most experimental Aircraft are built with materiails that superceed most all production aircraft.
Just because a plane has a low wing, doesn't have anything to do with inherent fuel feed problems.
The blame here should be the careless act as a pilot in command, not becaue the plane is registered "experimental".
Posted by: Guy Foreman at February 14, 2006 07:08 PM (zQh+h)
7
I know the owner of the plane and he didn't build it himself. The plane was purchased in Nov 05 from someone in TX. It is still has not comfirmed if he was actually piloting the plan when it crashed.
Posted by: San Clemente at February 14, 2006 08:59 PM (r43mB)
8
You know...the pilot and owner of the plane was my uncle, and none of you have the right until something like this happens in your family to bad talk a person you don't know, nor does anyone but him and his brother in law know what really happened in that plane. Several witnesses said that the plane stalled and the plane could not recover. Yeah he was violating the regulations distance rules, and such...but it doesn't mean that he deserved to die! My uncle was a veteran from the first Desert Storm, he served his country for all of you! He is a hero, and loved to have fun. They were doing stunts in that area because his brother in law wanted to put on a show for his son...and the really sad thing is, that his wife, mother, and son were watching when the plane went down. I feel horrible for the family who lost their son in the crash also...but lets remember that there are other victims here, and their memory deserves to live on in a good light! My uncles wife, son...all of us are devistated! You think nothing like this will happen to you, then you get a call like the one I got that morning. I love my uncle and he will forever live on in my heart and memories!
Posted by: Brandy Storer at February 17, 2006 10:10 PM (ZQ/Te)
9
This accident happened in my neighborhood, about 200 yards away from me. The plane was performing numerous manuevers, but way too low to the ground [at least 200 ft]. It was quite reckless, but no one deserved to die for it. With that said, that plane could've easily come down on my house & my whole family, plus 2 children from the neighborhood, would've been killed. I have compassion for those who lost loved ones, but the decision to fly illegally in my neighborhood, cannot be excused.
Posted by: SC at February 21, 2006 11:43 AM (iEkCM)
10
This is a very tragic accident and nobody should have died in this accident. Agreeing with what MarkD had to say about the lawers, the Glasair 2 and any Glasair for that matter have a great track record as far as safety. From what I know there has never been one come apart in the air.(Meaning from overstressing the structure of the plane) This accident from the evidence presented so far was due to pilot error. I have a Glasair 2 EXPERMENTAL and feel safer in it than I do in most aircraft.
Posted by: Brandon at February 28, 2006 03:26 PM (58Y9o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 21, 2006
Long Live The Whale
I could only come up with four flippant* comments about the whale. They are as follows:
- Haven't seen this many Londerners lining up to see a dead body since Diana's funeral.
- Why make such a big deal over this whale, when thousands of fish are lost along the Thames every day, and no one tries to save them. It's species favoritism, I tell you.
- Is there a way they can blame Bush for this one?
- "Unsuccessful attempts had been made during the night to encourage the Thames whale to swim back downriver." Maybe they should have tried a bikini whale.
Extremely lame, I know. Okay, so
you can do better?
_______________
* Five if you count that pun.
Posted by: annika at
03:43 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
1
1. Vive le Dauphin!
2. "C'est assez!" dit la baleine.
3. Quick solution to the whale's problems: grenade in blowhole.
4. Quicker solution: Sinead in blowhole.
5. Headline: A Confused Sir Elton John Sighted in Thames
6. Headline: Giant Sperm Attempts to Impregnate London
7. Headline: Disoriented Whale Likely Irish
8. Headline: Whale's Triumphant Swim to London Trumps Its 2004 Scaling of Eiffel Tower
9. Headline: Muslim Whale Decries British Decadence
10.
Headline: Whale Too Late to Watch David Blaine Stunt
Subtitle: "Piss,Fuck, Diddle!" Says Whale.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 22, 2006 02:24 AM (TDwc6)
2
Now
that's good comedy!
Posted by: annika at January 22, 2006 08:55 AM (BtM3x)
3
Crap. Kevin beat me to the angle I was going to use, or at least half of it: "Londoners Mourn Death of Oprah in Freak Thames Drowning; Scotland Yard Suspects French Involvement."
How about, "Autopsy: Thames Whale Had 0.3 BAC; Footie Yobs Sought in Investigation."
Shit. Those suck. I'm no comedian.
Posted by: Matt at January 22, 2006 10:23 AM (PYUlV)
4
Sperm whale impregnates London...
Ya know, if you think of a side view diagram of the reproductive system, and imagine southeast England as a uterus, London as an ovary, and the Thames as a fallopian tube...
Posted by: gcotharn at January 22, 2006 12:28 PM (KU0Ns)
Posted by: will at January 23, 2006 02:32 AM (h7Ciu)
6
An anagram engine tells us that the phrase "WHALE IN THAMES" yields a gazillion anagrams. Among them:
SEW HIM THE ANAL
WHEEL HIM, SANTA
ELENA WHAM SHIT
ENEMA WITH LASH
MAN HEAL WHITES
HATE HIS LAWMEN
HI! HATE SLEW MAN!
HE HAS LAME TWIN
and every sperm bank's favorite:
HAIL SEMEN THAW!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 23, 2006 04:44 AM (TDwc6)
7
Shit, shoulda quit while you were ahead.
Posted by: Casca at January 23, 2006 06:22 AM (y9m6I)
8
It's in London. They are British. So, they weren't lining up. They were "queuing" up. Sheesh, Annika. Don't be so culturally insensitive.
Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at January 23, 2006 07:32 AM (B5UVm)
9
"And there's more where
that came from!" shouted the asshole.
Kevin
hee hee
Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 23, 2006 08:15 AM (1PcL3)
10
Not better, necessarily, just stupider.
Here.
Posted by: Pachey at January 24, 2006 01:39 PM (BNTVs)
11
Great stuff Pachey. Blogrolled you.
Posted by: annika at January 24, 2006 01:49 PM (zAOEU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 26, 2005
Nano Nano
i love my new Nano. It's the perfect size. If it were any smaller, you wouldn't have anything to hold on to. If it were any thinner, you might bend it. And it's so pretty, it's like a work of art. When it finally craps out i'm going to sell it on eBay for a profit. i wish i had kept my original Walkman, i could have made a few bucks off it.
Interestingly, i just got done listening to "Night Prowler," by AC/DC, which ends with the words "nano nano." How cool is that?
Posted by: annika at
03:57 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I went snowshoeing with my Nano today, and I can testify that it works down to 15 degrees. Although you have to charge it more often at lower temperatures.
The Nano is a work of art.
Posted by: Jake at December 26, 2005 04:08 PM (r/5D/)
2
Merry Christmas Annie,
I bought my wife and son Nano's. I would agree that they are terrific! (My family and the Nano's)
However that is not why I'm commenting... (I'm putting the comment here because I can't find a email button anywhere on the page, I figured it must be a linux/mozzilla thing with my system) Now that you are out of school and you have actual time on your hands, wouldn't it be appropriate for a little Jepordy action?
Drake
Posted by: Drake Steel at December 26, 2005 11:27 PM (N0d08)
3
My cousin got one for christmas, and WOW it was realy small. Too small for me, I am sure I would lose it or destroy it somehow. I also think that cell phones are mostly too damm small. Its like you have to have doll hands to use them.
Posted by: Kyle N at December 27, 2005 02:53 AM (SNE/6)
4
Hooray for ipods!!
My boyfriend suprised me for Christmas with a video one. I love it!
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at December 27, 2005 07:37 AM (Wz2Gp)
5
"Nano Nano"?
An obscure Mork & Mindy (Robin Williams) reference?
Posted by: reagan80 at December 27, 2005 08:12 PM (c1eNa)
6
I went snowshoeing with my Nano today, and I can testify that it works down to 15 degrees.
You must have really small feet!
Posted by: Jim Treacher at December 27, 2005 11:06 PM (/fbjZ)
7
Just to clarify, Mork said Nanu Nanu. In the alternative universe, Mark and Mandy was the TV show in which Mark said Nano Nano. And I thought it was a
writing thingie.
Personally, I got an iPAQ for Christmas. Though I haven't found a use for Pocket Word yet.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at December 28, 2005 12:07 AM (lENLy)
8
Am I the only one who thinks that Robin Williams is beyond tedious?
Posted by: Kyle N at December 28, 2005 04:56 AM (9+XxV)
9
I plan to be the last person in the world with an ipod...or i-anything, to be honest...although my gf may give me a run for that honor.
I admit I admire Apple's design strategys, except for the one that they used on their 2-button mouse. Whoever thought of that hover-your-finger-and-press-the-whole-mouse-down idea needs to have his testicles, or her breasticles, run thru a wringer.
Posted by: Victor at December 28, 2005 08:17 AM (L3qPK)
10
No, Kyle, you aren't the only one.
Robin Williams is a has-been like Jim Carrey and Jerry Lewis. Most people don't even find them funny anymore.
I loved how Williams got a chilly reception from the troops a couple years ago when he made a crack about Bush's IQ.
Posted by: reagan80 at December 28, 2005 10:00 AM (gBlPv)
11
LMAO, i just
got that joke, Treach!
Posted by: annika at December 28, 2005 10:10 AM (E3kjp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 28, 2005
Speaking Of Monsters
Remember
my Job post from a few weeks ago, where i made reference to the giant squid? [to great rhetorical effect, i might add] Turns out that about a year ago some Japanese scientists obtained film of a live giant squid ―
the first time any human being has ever seen one alive! You may have seen the story. It's listed among the most popular links at Yahoo news.
People are fascinated by giant slimy things i guess. The giant squid has always held a particular mythological importance. Mainly, i think, because so little is known about it. As a monster it was known as the Kraken, and you can see it in the corners of those old time maps, usually clutching a square rigger within its tentacled death grip.
Maybe it's the fact that those things can grow to the length of a football field. Or those ten snakelike tentacles, all studded with suckers the size of pie plates. Or the fact that it spews forth black ink when it gets excited. Or that vicious parrot beak that can bite off the head of a pig.
As for me, i like 'em sliced up and fried in beer batter with tangy cocktail sauce on a Sunday afternoon and a football game on the big screen. An effective seafood cocktail sauce should always contain a generous amount of horseradish, tabasco and lemon in it. But i digress.
Here's an fascinating passage about the mysterious deep sea monster from an otherwise boring book called Moby Dick:
more...
Posted by: annika at
06:41 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1210 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Please, please let this be the last reference to Moby Dick here. A truly awful, excruciatingly boring book, not to mention down right weird I forced myself to read every word. I hope to expunge the whole sorry incident from my memory one day.
Posted by: Pursuit at September 28, 2005 07:22 PM (n/TNS)
2
I'm partial to rather small slimy things that taste like seafood.
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 07:40 PM (qBTBH)
3
I loved Moby Dick. We knew these Kraken existed for years because of the gaint sucker marks found on sperm whales, living and dead. It seems that they eat the squids, but they don't always win the fight.
Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 03:34 AM (3g8jc)
4
I'm a little confused why we're only just hearing about it now when it happened so long ago. Still, better late than never, I guess.
Posted by: Christiana Ellis at September 29, 2005 03:45 AM (msLwL)
5
You think Moby Dick was boring? Try reading another Melville classic, "White Jacket." No need for Sominex if you start reading this book.
Posted by: Tim at September 29, 2005 06:44 AM (PJ4Iq)
6
This incident in Moby Dick was based upon a real life incident.The ship Essex, out of Nantucke,t was destroyed by a whale in 1819.
If you go to Nantucket, you will learn all about the whaling industry and this incident. I love to go to Nantucket because of the history and because everyone wears preppy clothes like I do.
Posted by: Jake at September 29, 2005 08:11 AM (r/5D/)
7
"God bless Captain Vere!"
oops...wrong book. but, hey, at least it's a Melville novel that definitely does not suck.
Posted by: Blu at September 29, 2005 08:42 AM (j8oa6)
8
Oh, Anni, you're breaking my heart! I
loved Moby Dick in school; I was the only one in my class who read the whole book, including the chapters our teacher said we could skip.
The book I really hated in high school was Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". Although I wonder now that I'm older how I would take it if I ever reread it. Maybe I'd be more forgiving. And (heh!), maybe I wouldn't handle Moby Dick the same way; who knows?. Even back then, I noticed that Melville tended to go on and on with his descriptions; he gave verbosity a whole new meaning to me.
Posted by: E.M.H. at September 29, 2005 10:36 AM (xHyDY)
9
No doubt you also received a few ass beatings on the playground too.
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 11:11 AM (qBTBH)
10
Nooo, no. "Boring" is not the proper adjective. I graduated with an English BA. I LOVED reading novels and writing essays, for which the alma mater gave me a degree. I could read even boring novels and give them the benefit of the doubt, but not Moby Dick. The book started pretty strong, but the middle/bulk was damn near coma-inducing. To read chapter after chapter about whale's skulls, and whale sperm, and whale blubber, and blah, blah, zzz....
Posted by: Mark Moby at September 29, 2005 11:20 AM (Vg0tt)
11
i wouldn't say the Scarlet Letter is as overrated or undeserving of its hype as as Moby Dick is. But it was not an enjoyable read, and i have no desire to.
Posted by: annika at September 29, 2005 11:31 AM (zAOEU)
12
I'm loving these monster posts too.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 29, 2005 12:25 PM (kxatG)
13
"no doubt you also received a few ass beatings on the playground too."
that's some pretty funny shit, casca. bit edgy, but,hey, if the nancy boys can't handle it, screw 'em.
what ever happened to the huge comment of the week, anyway?
Posted by: Blu at September 29, 2005 01:20 PM (j8oa6)
14
The Scarlet letter blew chuncks. Most early american novels were not that good but the art form was only just being created. From the same period, but much better written was anything by Alexander Dumas.
Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 03:26 PM (CkwDS)
15
I can remember reading The Count of Monte Cristo in about a week over summer break when I was 13. I could never make it through The Scarlet Letter although it was one tenth the volume. Hawthorne turned illict sex into a snore.
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 04:21 PM (qBTBH)
16
Well, the Leatherstocking Tales can be difficult reading, but they are way more enjoyable than Scarlet Letter was. And i think Cooper predated Hawthorne, if i'm not mistaken.
Posted by: annika at September 29, 2005 07:06 PM (llWIi)
17
Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables was very good, and it's not overhyped like The Scarlet Letter is.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553212702/qid=1128096921/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-6229300-0112159?v=glance&s=books
Also The Blithedale Romance was great. It's about communal living. Although Hawthorne is critical of it all, it's amazing how he almost foresaw some of modern liberalism's talking points.
Posted by: Mark at September 30, 2005 09:18 AM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 30, 2005
USS Midway Photos
i've posted some photos from last weekend's visit to
USS Midway. You can find them
here. It was interesting walking around a carrier with my dad, who served on one back in the day (not the
Midway). We really got the inside story.
According the the Midway's website, it was the longest serving carrier in the U.S. Navy.
The USS Midway set new standards of naval aviation in the latter half of the 20th century. A captured German V-2 rocket was launched off the USS Midway in 1946—the dawn of naval missile warfare. The USS Midway blazed new trails of sub-Arctic air operations off the coast of Greenland. It was the first carrier homeported in a foreign country, calling Yokosuka, Japan home for 18 years. When others came home, the USS Midway remained at the “tip of the sword” on an odyssey shared by 200,000 Americans that spanned the surrender of Japan in WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam, the era of détente and Desert Storm.
It's worth a look if you're ever in San Diego.
Posted by: annika at
10:12 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We literally must've been in SD at the same time, last week I went and saw the exhibit too! It is a great exhibit, definitely everyone should check it out. If only I'd known, then... then what?!
Posted by: Scof at July 31, 2005 12:09 AM (4P1HE)
2
The movie that goes best with this post is:
"The Bridges at Toko-Ri" (1955) staring William Holden and Grace Kelly.
Posted by: Jake at July 31, 2005 07:57 AM (r/5D/)
3
Bloody tourists, and civilians!
I was dining in the panoramic dining room of the University Club last night, and observing that most unique of sights, no carriers at North Island. Could the nippers be sneaking up on us again? In any case, when they parked the Midway at the foot of Broadway, they diminished the view of San Diego from the island, and limited the view down the bay in both directions from the SD side.
The people running this concession are a bunch of idiots. I could go on at length, but witness the fifty dollar home depot park bench sitting at the business end of the flight deck. Good gawd, I wish they'd move it to Long Beach with the rest of the relics.
Posted by: Casca at July 31, 2005 08:21 AM (qBTBH)
4
Uh, were you drunk when you took these pictures?
Posted by: Casca at July 31, 2005 08:24 AM (qBTBH)
5
Scof: i was there on Monday, what a coincidence!
Jake: got it on DVD.
Casca: if there was any doubt that you're a Marine, it's gone now.
Posted by: annika at July 31, 2005 09:00 AM (tuV7q)
6
btw, Dad remarked about the lack of carriers too.
Posted by: annika at July 31, 2005 09:02 AM (tuV7q)
7
this dosent have much to do with it, but my Uncle was a sailor on the Enterprise when it got set on fire by Kamakazis. He described the battle to me when i was a kid and it sure was an eye opener.
He was a crusty ol fart who had some sage advice, about tatoos: He told me only bikers and whte trash get tatoos unless you are a sailor or marine then you can have a goddam anchor on your arm.
about male jewlry: "the only men who where earings are pirates and butt pirates"
about women: "Get one who can cook, you stop having sex after a year anyway."
true stuff.
Posted by: Kyle at July 31, 2005 02:48 PM (H5KE9)
8
For a sailor, I kinda like your uncle.
Posted by: Casca at August 01, 2005 06:29 AM (qBTBH)
9
Wow, yet another thing we have in common, Annika. My dad worked on carriers, too. He was a civilian electronics technician. He would often get sent out for weeks at a time to meet the Midway wherever it happened to be (San Diego, Bremerton, Hawaii, Japan, or the Philippines usually). He also worked a lot on the Coral Sea, the Enterprise, and the Nimitz.
I didn't know the Midway had set up shop in San Diego. I'll have to check it out next time I'm there...
Posted by: Score Bard at August 01, 2005 12:51 PM (IZAv6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2005
Aircraft Humour
This may be apocryphal, but it's funny.
The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206.
Speedbird 206: " Frankfurt , Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."
Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?"
Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, -- and didn't land."
Thanks to Shelly for that one.
Posted by: annika at
08:10 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ted at May 05, 2005 08:47 AM (blNMI)
2
In the early days of Beatlemania, when John Lennon's image was still being protected (i.e. before the summer of 1966), he is reputed to have said, "It's good to fly Lufthansa to London. All the pilots know the way."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 05, 2005 12:56 PM (FPdMX)
3
That story may be apocryphal, but I have it on very good authority that a similar exchange really did take place during a post-war visit by an American(?) to the Krupp Works. I'll try to remember to ask the guy who knows
the guy, and get you the full account.
My boss, whose grandfather was in the Luftwaffe ground forces (a signal troop) in the East during WWII, tells a similar story regarding his mother's visit to Russia many years later. Apparently, a tour guide asked whether anyone had been to Russia before, or knew anyone who had. I consider that one apocryphal, though; my boss's stories have been known to change over time, always in ways that make them either more amusing, or more flattering to him.
Posted by: Matt at May 05, 2005 08:27 PM (SQrDV)
4
There is a similar story of a NATO meeting of high ranking officers and a German General was complaining to the group and asking why everyone always insisted on speaking English.
A British Admiral then remarked dryly "Because you lost the bloody war".
Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2005 10:02 PM (pO1tP)
5
It's a testament to our occupation strategy that we were able to turn 12 generations of Prussian military tradition into a bunch of weaklings in 50 years.
Posted by: Jason O. at May 06, 2005 12:55 PM (2CAKL)
6
---While of course retaining the engineering/technical competence for BMWs and Audis, et al.
Posted by: Jason O. at May 06, 2005 12:57 PM (2CAKL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 09, 2005
Chicks Dig Aerobatics
Mary Madigan at
Dean's World has a Quicktime video of
a pretty dangerous looking stunt by a Lithuanian aerobatics pilot in a Sukhoi SU-26.
And there's another dangerous stunt captured on Quicktime, posted by another chick, Christiana Ellis.
Posted by: annika at
11:51 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: JD at April 09, 2005 04:10 PM (J+Gcr)
2
How does the old saw go? There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2005 06:43 PM (cdv3B)
3
There's a technical term for those guys: Crazy motherfuckers.
There's another technical term for those guys: Damned good pilots.
Posted by: Matt at April 09, 2005 08:20 PM (TLYaI)
4
I like my girls Aerodynamic...
Posted by: Kin at April 11, 2005 07:58 AM (FPO9K)
5
Hell, Han Solo does crazy stuff like that all the time!
Posted by: Victor at April 11, 2005 10:09 AM (L3qPK)
6
Pierre, a French fighter pilot, takes his girlfriend, Marie, out for a pleasant little picnic by the River Seine.
It's a beautiful day and love is in the air. Marie leans over to Pierre and says, "Pierre, kiss me!"
Pierre grabs a bottle of Merlot and splashes it on Marie's lips.
"What are you doing, Pierre?" says the startled Marie.
"I am Pierre, the fighter pilot! When I have red meat, I have red wine!"
She smiles and they start kissing. Things began to heat up a little and Marie says, "Pierre, kiss me lower."
Our hero tears her blouse open, grabs a bottle of Chardonnay and pours it on her breasts.
"Pierre! What are you doing now?" asks the bewildered Marie.
"I am Pierre, the fighter pilot! When I have white meat, I have white wine!"
She giggles and they resume their passionate interlude, and things really steam up.
Marie leans close to his ear and whispers, "Pierre, kiss me much lower!"
Pierre rips off her underwear, grabs a bottle of Cognac and pours it in her lap. He then strikes a match and lights the cognac on fire.
Marie shrieks and dives into the River Seine.
Standing waist deep, Marie throws her arms into the air and screams furiously,
"PIERRE, WHAT IN THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?"
Our 'hero' stands and says defiantly, "I am Pierre, the fighter pilot! If I go down, I go down in flames!"
Posted by: louielouie at April 13, 2005 08:52 AM (i7mWl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 05, 2005
Problems With Last Night's 24
i'm only willing to suspend disbelief so far. One of the things i have liked about 24 is its plausibility, but last night's episode was not a good example.
As my sophisticated visitors no doubt are aware, it's a common misconception that the F-117 is "invisible" to radar. Not true. The stealth fighter is not invisible, but its radar cross-section is very small - about 10 to 100 square centimeters according to one website i checked. That's pretty small, but not undetectable if you're looking for it, as i'm sure every radar in Southern California would have been after CTU had discerned the threat to Air Force One. Also, detection should have been easier since the F-117 was flying at a higher altitude to intercept the president's plane.
Next, the show's writers appear to have been confused by the nomenclature. "Fighter" is a broad and pretty misleading term. The F-117 is not designed for air combat. It is more properly called a ground attack aircraft. Last night, Bauer was told that the F-117 was carrying "standard non-nuclear ordnance." According to this site, that would include the following ground attack weapons: "BLU-109B low-level laser-guided bomb, GBU-10 and GBU-27 laser-guided bomb units, Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick and Raytheon AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface missiles."
Since the terrorist pilot stole the aircraft, i doubt it had been modified to carry the type of air-to-air missiles that would be needed to shoot down Air Force One. The HARM is an anti-radar missile, and i would guess it's not capable of hitting a plane in flight. i don't know if it's possible to lock the Maverick onto a plane, but i would guess that it's not a very agile missile even if you could. But the biggest problem i see would be the warhead.
The warhead is in the missile's center section. Either a 125-pound shaped-charge warhead or a 300-pound penetrator warhead can be used. A contact fuse in the nose fires the shaped-charge warhead. The penetrator uses a delayed-fuse, allowing the warhead to penetrate the target with its kinetic energy before firing. The latter is very effective against large, hard targets.
See the problem? The missile has to actually hit something before it will go off. That's easy when it's aimed at a building. Not so easy in air-to-air situations. And a shaped charge is designed to penetrate armor, so it's not as effective if it explodes out in the open
Also, a stealth fighter is not invisible to radar if it's emitting its own radar beam. Once the F-117 had locked onto the president's plane, everybody would have known where it was. There should have been a shitload of flares and chaff ejected from Air Force One and all the escorts to decoy the missile. Actually, i think once the bomb doors were opened, they would have detected it.
Of course this is all nit-picking. i still love 24. And we won't know what happened for sure until next week's episode.
Posted by: annika at
01:28 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The last episode did not get to me as much as Jack's new girl friend acting all flakey because Jack had to put a little current to him, whats up with that?
Posted by: Dex at April 05, 2005 05:08 PM (kO17P)
2
The current issue pertains to Jacks girl friend husband.
Posted by: Dex at April 05, 2005 05:09 PM (kO17P)
3
No fucking way you are a chick!
I'll have to agree with your analysis, and take it another step. The shape charge isn't going to detonate without contact. So, write off the mav, and the HARM is a beam rider that recognizes AAA freqs and follows them to the emitter. Neither of these is going to hit an aircraft in flight, and even if they did, they'd just punch holes in it which won't bring it down.
As for Jack's new fucktoy being squeamish, well it is the first day, and she is the boss' daughter. I'd be fucking the pouty little bitch who's always in the fat boy's shit.
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2005 09:32 PM (cdv3B)
4
I don't watch 24 -- not sure why, really -- but that sounds really dumb. A Maverick warhead -- either kind -- would do plenty of damage to a 747, but you're right: Hitting it would be the problem. I checked, and it doesn't even look like the F-117 can carry Sidewinders. (There are some websites that claim it can, but nothing official. And I very much doubt it: They'd have to be external, and they'd screw up the radar signature.)
Posted by: Matt at April 05, 2005 10:31 PM (TLYaI)
5
Nicely done. In a world of fiction, though, I'd imagine getting around the problem by having the F-117 get close enough that a missile strike would be possible with a straight shot, no guidance necessary. Yes, a stretch, but better IMHO than having an aircraft which explicitly doesn't have radar turn on its radar. And the F-117 hasn't got radar because 1) the emitter is a wonderful reflector of radar energy and 2) turning it on would have the precise effect you describe, making our stealthy little wonder stand out like a flare in a cave. Oh, and 3) not a weapon the F-117 can carry uses radar anyway.
Posted by: bob at April 05, 2005 10:55 PM (CzckL)
6
Matt, the HARM looks an awful lot like the AIM sparrow, which is a radar guided air-to-air missile that would have been perfect for the job. the HARM is actually a little bigger, so a sparrow could concievably fit in the same space on an F-117, which would be inside the plane. Still, there would have to be some modification to the F-117, which didn't happen in last night's episode.
Posted by: annie at April 05, 2005 11:57 PM (9g/0D)
7
Annie,
Yes, a Sparrow could probably fit. But there's the radar problem; unlike Sidewinder, you can't just strap an AIM-7 on and point it at something hot. It
might be made to work. More research later.
Posted by: Matt at April 06, 2005 04:37 AM (TLYaI)
8
I agree. The major problems (radar sig, the airforce one defences) where what everyone else brought up also (everyone being the group i watch it with). We were also disappointed with 24.
Also, the missle hit a fighter escort then hit Air force one, because they were trying to ground the plane to get the football.
Posted by: cubicle at April 06, 2005 07:27 AM (nyNr0)
9
I revise my earlier comment. I don't think it could be made to work. Not without a great deal of work, anyway. (Shit, with enough work my
car could be made to fire a Sparrow.)
Posted by: Matt at April 06, 2005 07:59 AM (SIlfx)
10
It's a good thing you are on the Left Coast. If you were anywhere near NYC, I'd be madly in love after reading you analysis.
Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at April 06, 2005 08:55 AM (B5UVm)
11
I agree with all of the commets on the stealth fighter...and while annoying it isn't the reason I don't watch 24. Don't get me wrong, I was part of the "crowd", I watched the first season, and even the second...but then I realized that it was the same show. I mean, when will Jack die? If we are debating the reality of the show, we should discuss Jack's relation to cats. The man has so many lives that I grew bored with the show before it ended. I honestly think that I could get behind it if they put someone else in there and killed him off. Besides, he gives orders to the "directors" which annoys me...no "director" of any federal agency I am familiar with would take orders from a subordinate...even in California.
Posted by: Courtney at April 06, 2005 08:45 PM (wlc23)
12
Re: radars in california :looking for the F117" The FAA radars are meant to work with transponders in the aircraft. Every time the radat paints the target, the transponder sends out a radio burst with its ID code and usually altitude info. They're not real great skin tracking aircraft, even airliners. Military airdefense radars, HAWK batteries, so forth are made to do just that, track small aircraft which aren't emmitting. Fort Irwin, the electronic warfare range at China Lake, Fallon NV are probably the only places around that have assets to do that.
Posted by: Wayne at April 06, 2005 10:16 PM (ADvcY)
13
Yeah...but it sure was cool when the big rocket bomb hit and there was a bunch of fire!
Posted by: Billy at April 07, 2005 07:48 AM (IV9Ba)
14
This isn't nit picking. 24 is run in an era when everyone has access to that website - including the writers of the script. And they could have done a better job at staying true to the technology.
Dare I say it? Hollywood writers don't have much confidence in the common man - we will believe whatever they say...
Posted by: Zendo Deb at April 10, 2005 11:06 AM (S417T)
15
I work for a major aviation museum and was griping about these apparent errors myself. They would have been better having the guy steal an F-22 fighter; I'm sure the USAF would have preferred the publicity for the newer jet, and it would cover all our nitpicks. But its not black and doesn't have the same place in the public's consciousness as the Nighthawk.
That said, the F-117 *can* carry Sidewinders(though I remember this missile looking a lot like a semi-active radar missile), and the facility he took off from might well have them available (who loaded them for him though?!). How he located AF1 without the benefit of a radar is a bigger nitpick.
Posted by: Jonathan at June 20, 2005 03:24 AM (cplvF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 29, 2005
The Spanking Cure
i have no comment on
this one.
Posted by: annika at
11:27 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, I have a comment. From the article-- what the hell does "A standard treatment course entails 30 sessions with 60 of the best" mean?
60 of the best what? Best-hung dwarves?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 30, 2005 12:40 AM (ipR0J)
2
You didn't post the money quote:
"The Russian team says they are now charging for the caning sessions and are getting over U.S.$ 100 per patient for a standard treatment."
$100 to spank someone's bottom? I had heard that the standard rate was $500.
Posted by: physics geek at March 30, 2005 08:48 AM (Xvrs7)
3
Spanking kept me on the straight and narrow...Thanks Mom!!!
Posted by: Jason O. at March 30, 2005 10:38 AM (2CAKL)
4
UNBELIEVABLE!
How Bumsen goes above eo America fachise! one eo be able noe eo be disciplined or noe eo complain Ie, know one Wednesday ae ehe disposal which would release which ie kingdom adopes ad infinieum however of Whingers in anei-Americanism Kanadabloviaee in our counery, as ehey can awaie ie eo be differene if, ehis bad geseapo eo coneinue minorieies oppressed wieh a legislaeion absurdiey eake pare, such as ehis one is beyond me. ehis eo examine on a shade one of a doube, ehae America vom in ehe manner reason of fleeing ie and maineaining anyehing more ehan a one naeion oueside, which by pure malevolence ReichWhinge Rube eo lay oue.
If ehis paeiene Perversion in law eo exceed, have eo our eOKEN ENeRY our ambassador in ehePlain ones immediaeely eo poine oue, publish a fore eo condemn againse oueside and eo begin milieary eaeeigkeiesagaine America, Chimpy McBushieler and ehe pareicipane eo lay oue before ineernaeional ehe coure ouseed and eo erail. differenely eo make decide ie boar our superior, colonel, divide Canadian value.
I fart loudly!
Posted by: Robert Mc-Lelland at March 30, 2005 12:41 PM (QCLlJ)
5
Is that the real McLelland? I ask because he seems to be on even more drugs than usual.
Posted by: Dave J at March 31, 2005 09:06 AM (kLLbt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2005
Time Traveler Busted For Insider Trading
This story reminds me of a very funny Kevin Nealon skit on Saturday Night Live.
Sources at the Security and Exchange Commission confirm that 44-year-old Andrew Carlssin offered the bizarre explanation for his uncanny success in the stock market after being led off in handcuffs on January 28.
'We don't believe this guy's story -- he's either a lunatic or a pathological liar,' says an SEC insider.
'But the fact is, with an initial investment of only $800, in two weeks' time he had a portfolio valued at over $350 million. Every trade he made capitalized on unexpected business developments, which simply can't be pure luck.
'The only way he could pull it off is with illegal inside information. He's going to sit in a jail cell on Rikers Island until he agrees to give up his sources.'
. . .
Carlssin declared that he had traveled back in time from over 200 years in the future, when it is common knowledge that our era experienced one of the worst stock plunges in history. Yet anyone armed with knowledge of the handful of stocks destined to go through the roof could make a fortune.
'It was just too tempting to resist,' Carlssin allegedly said in his videotaped confession. 'I had planned to make it look natural, you know, lose a little here and there so it doesn't look too perfect. But I just got caught in the moment.'
In a bid for leniency, Carlssin has reportedly offered to divulge 'historical facts' such as the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and a cure for AIDS.
All he wants is to be allowed to return to the future in his 'time craft.'
However, he refuses to reveal the location of the machine or discuss how it works, supposedly out of fear the technology could 'fall into the wrong hands.'
The SNL skit was a parody of a Wall Street Week type panel show in which various experts talked about their secret to investing. Kevin Nealon, dressed in a silver jumpsuit, was one of the panelists, named "Future Man." When his turn came to talk about his secret to investing, he held up a line graph and pointed to it, saying that his method was simple: "buy here, sell here, buy sell buy sell buy sell."
i want to believe it could happen, though. Don't you?
Posted by: annika at
08:29 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The link to that story is broken. Maybe he came back in time and deleted it?
Posted by: Andy at March 28, 2005 08:48 PM (l04c2)
2
I'll bet his contacts were those same d*** meddling aliens from the 1992 elections, or maybe it was bat boy. Of course, it's a shame he
escaped, since he probably knows how to stop the sun from blowing up in 2008.
Posted by: Ben Zeen (a pseudonym) at March 28, 2005 09:58 PM (ajOQw)
3
Sheila O'Malley had a fun game at her site...if you had a time machine good for one round trip, where would you go? (Or should I say, "when" would you go?)
My modification to the game: You have an *unreliable* time machine, with a 50% chance you will get stuck forever..does that change your destination?
Posted by: David Foster at March 29, 2005 05:28 AM (UgkBm)
4
I used to daydream in high school about how much money I could make if I had a copy of a Wall Street Journal dated I year in the future. Thinking about getting the money was more fun than thinking about spending it.
Posted by: Jake at March 29, 2005 08:18 AM (r/5D/)
5
If the time machine was created 200 years from now, this guy's actions violate Einstein's causality principle.
This guy claims that he traveled through time in such a way as to hold all other cause and effect relationships constant over 200 years of history except the events directly relating to his stock trades.
Think of this example: If you go back in time and prevent a murder, then the murder ceases to exist for your future self to discover and decide to prevent!!
Elementary, my dear Annika.
Posted by: Jason O. at March 29, 2005 11:04 AM (2CAKL)
6
i think that theory was debunked by the Terminator trilogy.
Posted by: annika at March 29, 2005 02:26 PM (zAOEU)
7
X-actly! Freakin' brainiacs always have some kinda smartass answer.
Posted by: Casca at March 29, 2005 04:03 PM (cdv3B)
8
The idea that time travel violates causality is just SO boring, Jason, and less and less substantiated: string theory says there are at least 11 dimensions and a potentially infinite number of parallel universes, so the Terminator example actually does make a modicum of sense: go back, change the past, and you create an alternate timeline universe, not a infinitely circuitous causal loop. So there. :-p
(Am I actually arguing about this?!)
Posted by: Dave J at March 29, 2005 08:40 PM (kLLbt)
9
Where were you nerds when i was doing robot week? i could have used the comment love.
Posted by: annika at March 29, 2005 08:44 PM (dMgez)
10
Dave: Boring, but also the best available set of tools for this example. String or quantum theory is fascinating on a subatomic level, but a question like time travel is macroscopic, and that is still best assessed by relativity.
An analogy: Newtonian principles are perfectly fine (and are the preferred method) to study continuum (i.e.,macroscopic) fluid dynamics.
Posted by: Jason O. at March 30, 2005 10:35 AM (2CAKL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 01, 2005
You Never Saw Frankenstein Depressed Did You?
A procedure that involves drilling two holes into a person's skull and then implanting electrodes in the brain has shown promise in treating individuals who are severely depressed and resistant to other types of treatment.
This study was done in Toronto, Ontario, which puzzles me, since i keep hearing about what a utopian workers' paradise Canada is. How can anybody possibly be depressed there? Maybe it's all those newly arrived depressed American Democrats.
Posted by: annika at
01:42 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Seems like it would be possible to alter the process into a simplified form of lobotomy. The procedure would probably sell like hotcakes in Hollywood, provided it was pitched as a weight-loss method.
Posted by: JD at March 02, 2005 04:45 AM (pQrtL)
2
They're probably depressed about living in igloos and having nothing but cold eskimo poon.
Posted by: Spanky at March 02, 2005 01:04 PM (LVsGX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 22, 2005
Robot News: K.I.T.T. Car Comes Closer To Reality
David Hasselhoff's robotic co-star, the Knight Industries Two Thousand, may be one step closer to reality.
Swiss manufacturer Rinspeed Industries plans to introduce the Senso next month at the Geneva Motor Show.
The 'Senso', which runs on environmentally friendly natural gas, has, not without reason, been labeled the most sensuous car in the world. The 'Senso' actually 'senses' the driver by measuring his (or her) biometric data, and then exerts a positive effect on him with the help of patterns, colors, music and fragrances. A person who is relaxed and wide-awake simply drives better and more safely.
The Senso, while not as articulate as K.I.T.T., seems to care just as much for the well being of its driver.
As both speed and number of cars increase steadily, mobility becomes its own pitfall: the more cars there are on the street, the more stress is induced in the drivers – which might even add to a potentially aggressive mood caused by private or work-related problems. Nowadays, cars are used primarily by individuals, so there is no-one there to soothe the drivers in case of aggression, or keep the drivers awake during a long, monotonous journey. This results in an increasing number of accidents caused by stress or drowsiness.
One solution to this predicament would be a car that reacts to the mood of its driver.
The Rinspeed Senso with zenMotion shows what the future in automotive man-machine interaction could look like . . .
During the trip, sensors constantly measure speed, accelerate-brake-frequency, the driver's pulse, and other aspects that are part of the 'driving behavior'. Depending on the situation, the patterns change to soothe the driver or keep him/her awake, the music volume is adjusted accordingly, and the cabin temperature rises or falls. Of course, this happens in very subtle and unobtrusive ways, so the driver will still fully concentrate on the traffic.
i don't know about you, but the novelty would probably wear off on me after the first week. Then it would just become annoying. Kind of like the show Knight Rider, come to think of it.
The whole project is based on an elaborate sensory system that forms the heart of the vehicle. It consists of a number of sensors that have the job of gathering data about the driver's condition. Firstly, there is a biometric Polar watch to measure the driver's pulse. A "Mobile Eye" camera records his driving behavior, in other words how well and how often he changes lane, and how close and at what speed he approaches the cars in front. Then - this, at any rate, is the vision - a HP board computer evaluates the data and establishes, with the aid of special algorithms, the driver's current state of mind.
. . .
In the 'Senso' – depending on the condition of the driver - four small Sharp LCD monitors emit stimulating (orange/yellow), relaxing (blue/violet) or neutral (green) color patterns into the driver's line of vision. They are integrated into the futuristically designed interior paneling, which lights up over the entire area and bathes the cockpit in dazzle-free ambient light.
. . .
The optical stimuli are reinforced by especially composed sounds stored digitally on a computer. In addition to the eyes and ears, the nose is stimulated, too – by scents developed by the fragrances specialist, Voitino CWS, which flow into the car through the ventilators. Vanilla-mandarin has a calming effect, while citrus-grapefruit is more stimulating.
Interesting. Anyone who has ever ridden in a car with my brother when he has gas can verify the power of odor to keep a driver awake and alert, if not extremely eager to arrive at her destination. But i digress.
Even the tactile senses are included: should the central computer establish any symptoms of tiredness in the driver, electric motors integrated in the seat will shake him awake by vibrating.
A vibrating seat? Now that has promise.
i bet this car will be a big hit in Germany because, as you know, Germans love David Hasselhoff.
[cross-posted at A Western Heart]
Posted by: annika at
05:26 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 680 words, total size 5 kb.
1
STOP!!! You're making my head hurt! Unless your next post is about those $10,000 love dolls.
Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2005 07:11 PM (cdv3B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 06, 2004
The Return Of Aviation Trivia
What is "wrong" with
this banner ad, i found while websurfing?
Posted by: annika at
12:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Re Rotating Epigram -- the flip side (of right to be heard is not a right to be taken seriously epigram) is "Just because you have a right to an opinion, does not mean your opinion in right."
Posted by: Iam Doubt at November 06, 2004 12:47 PM (9kTFs)
2
Let's see.....an F-18 Hornet in an ad for the Air Force does not compute. The F-18 is supposed to be exclusive to the arsenal of the Navy and Marine Corps. I don't believe the Air Force has any Hornets in any of their tactical fighter wings. Basically, the Navy is either advertising for the Air Force or the Air Force is advertising for the Navy in some sort of bizarre recruiter swing party.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 06, 2004 01:09 PM (hlMFQ)
3
Reagan80, since they give a non-US phone number and the site is the Australian version of Yahoo, I assume it's an ad for the Australian AF. I know the USAF has no F-18's, but the Australian AF has 71 according to their website.
But as far as answering the question of what's "wrong" with the picture, I've got nothing.
Posted by: Paul W at November 06, 2004 04:16 PM (Xho2N)
4
The F-18 is flying west but the shadows clearly indicate the sun has set.
Or is it that the plane looks like it is standing still and the water is moving.
No, Wait, now that I moved the picture into photoshop, I see that the pilot has his oxygen mixture set to rich for such a low altitude.
Posted by: mike at November 06, 2004 04:18 PM (0ZdtC)
5
Could it be a Su-27 Flanker, painted haze grey, with USN insignia. Nah, Reagan80 got it; I just wanted to post a comment to celebrate the return of aviation trivia.
Annika, have you read Ben Rich's 'SKUNK WORKS'? If not, I'd certainly recommend it. Rich was Kelly Johnson's protégé and worked for Johnson on the U-2 and SR-71. After Johnson retired Rich led the Skunk Works team through the F-117 program.
Posted by: Jasen at November 06, 2004 04:25 PM (WXicR)
6
Yeah, reagan80 nailed it -- but I think Paul made a very good catch. Our clever hostess put "wrong" in quotes because "the" (U.S.) Air Force doesn't fly the F/A-18 (thus the ad seems wrong), but she knows the RAAF does (thus it's not really wrong -- i.e., "wrong"). Annika's busting out a little of that freshman psych on us.
Posted by: Matt at November 06, 2004 04:59 PM (eWM9Y)
7
Annika, I just saw an ad saying the Marine Corps is looking for women to fly high-performance aircraft. Sure you really want to go to law school?
Posted by: David Foster at November 06, 2004 07:19 PM (0PXmV)
8
Foster, the two aren't mutually exclusive: military JAG's can do ANYTHING. I saw it on TV, so it must be true. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at November 06, 2004 09:26 PM (GEMsk)
9
You guys are too fucking good. i thought this was much harder than it turned out to be. Paul W. got it first. There is nothing "wrong" with the ad. It is for the Royal Australian Air Force, which does indeed fly the F/A-18, built in Australia under license from McDonnell Douglas.
Posted by: annika! at November 06, 2004 09:40 PM (ZW23W)
10
She's like fucking with our minds and shit
...only cuz I did not catch it...
Posted by: Scof at November 07, 2004 12:16 AM (Oo2Oh)
11
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I went for it hook, line and sinker. I was going to comment that the AF doesn't fly F/A-18s, until I saw Paul's comment.
Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2004 10:10 AM (SIlfx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
120kb generated in CPU 0.2485, elapsed 0.2831 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.2469 seconds, 315 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
