November 06, 2015
Tattoos
I have never been tempted to vandalize my body that way. (Of course, I've never vandalized anything else, either.)
But of course, one of the reasons each generation has strange fashions is in order to scandalize the prior generation, which is one of the reasons I had long hair when I was in my 20's. (Also, because it was strawberry blonde and looked really good.)
So in keeping with that principle, I'm always a bit scandalized when I see a tattoo on a pretty girl, like this one:
This one is particularly annoying because it doesn't mean anything. Bad enough that she's vandalizing herself, but she's doing it with nonsense. It's not proper Japanese, and I think it doesn't mean anything in Chinese either.
As best I can tell it's this:
æ— ä½¿
Which isn't a proper word or sentence in Japanese.
æ— is pronounced mu and means "nothing, naught".
使 is pronounced tsuka and it means "use" but it never appears in Japanese without a hiragana ending. (Such as 使ㄠtsukai which means "user" among many other things.)
So if æ— ä½¿ means anything at all, it would be "useless". Why would someone want that on their skin?
grumble dumb kids grumble
UPDATE: They say a sure sign that you're getting old is when you begin to obsess about the moral failings of the younger generation, and I passed that particular hurdle a long time ago.
UPDATE: I read the first kanji wrong. See comments.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
10:15 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.
1
A few things.
1) You don't have to be old to be bothered by tattoos. It's always ugly.
2) Tattoos on a Woman is a huge red flag. If it's the "tramp stamp" variety, make adjustments accordingly.
3) It's a trend for a lot of very ugly reasons that has little to with rejecting the previous generation. It mostly ties in with point #2, but I don't want to derail your post with a discussion of it.
Now, looking closely at the tattoo, I think you've misread the first character. It should be 天. Which would render it as "天使", so "Tenshi". It's supposed to be a tattoo for "angel".
But it is kind of badly written and would bother most Japanese.
Posted by: sqa at November 06, 2015 10:54 PM (97YUU)
2
I stand corrected. You're right about the first kanji.
It's still ugly.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at November 06, 2015 10:58 PM (+rSRq)
3
Honestly, I was just surprised not to see facial piercings. Once they start
decorating desecrating, they usually don't stop with just one style.
And, yeah, horribly-drawn kanji, by someone who owned a brush but had no idea how characters are formed. I've got a shovelware disc full of cheesy Japanese display fonts, and not even those managed to replace a single horizontal stroke with a pair of tentacles.
Although a proper tentacle-kanji font
would be useful occasionally...
-j
Posted by: J Greely at November 06, 2015 11:34 PM (ZlYZd)
4
I've found that, when I need to work out a Kanji, it's normally best to go with Stroke Count. I've found this
page pretty useful. If you can figure out the Stroke Count or the major Radical, you can work back most any kanij. No matter how badly written. (This has been important before)
Most of the trend, in piercings, has actually dialed back since the 90s. The belly-button one seems to be the "in" thing. When mixed with the side or shoulder tattoos, they're only visible in either beachwear or "really should be wearing more" party wear. Which just goes to the signaling acting as intended.
Posted by: sqa at November 07, 2015 01:32 AM (97YUU)
5
I've been using a program called "JWPCE" to identify kanji, and yes, it does support stroke count. There's also a mechanism for doing that at Nihongodict (click "Kanji Lookup").
I have been using stroke count for years.
Stroke count wouldn't have saved me this time. Both the right kanji and the wrong one I found were 4 strokes.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at November 07, 2015 08:08 AM (+rSRq)
6
Once upon a time at the Duck U Bookstore, I asked a very pretty girl why she had gotten so heavily inked... I mean, she was working on a full sleeve, plus many others. Her response was "I want to personalize my body."
Which was probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's your
body, it's
already "personalized".
I wanted to scream at her. Instead I thanked her for answering and gave her her change. Then I went back into my office and wept for the future of the world.
Posted by: Wonderduck at November 07, 2015 08:35 AM (a12rG)
7
This post needs a mention of Stephen Lynch's "Tattoo" song (which is nsfw, an available several places on youtube). It does have a verse about bad Kanji/Hanzi tattoos.
Posted by: Mikeski at November 07, 2015 07:11 PM (hAtXl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 31, 2015
Grumble rassafratzin
Erin McClam, NBC News:
The Texas sheriff's deputy who was killed at a gas station was shot 15 times by a gunman who unloaded his entire clip, a prosecutor said Monday as the suspect appeared in court for the first time.
Dear Erin,
Repeat after me: magazine, not clip. magazine, not clip. magazine, not clip.
Gad.
UPDATE: I don't think anyone has ever made a 14-round clip, and anyway you'd have to go all the way back to something like the Broomhandle Mauser to find a handgun which was loaded with a clip. (Which held 10 rounds, so maybe a 14-round clip isn't so far fetched.)
Anyway, lots of magazines are even larger than that, up to and including drum magazines carrying 100 rounds.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
01:01 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My Calico sports 100 round magazines. Cool gun for plinking, bought it to annoy my Congressman back in Michigan: "Comrade" Bonior.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at August 31, 2015 04:22 PM (L5yWw)
2
That must be heavy when it's fully loaded. It's a two-handed weapon and you'd
need two hands.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 31, 2015 07:05 PM (+rSRq)
3
Surprisingly, it's not that bad. That' it's mostly aluminum and plastic helps. It's a carbine, and the magazine extends back over the top behind the grip, and balances the barrel. You can actually point shoot it one handed.
Though it does come with a Kelly grip, as it was originally designed as a machine gun.
Trivia fact: It's was the Punisher's favorite gun in Marvel comics.
http://www.eliotrbrown.com/wp/punisher-armory-2.html/pa2-21
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at September 01, 2015 02:14 AM (L5yWw)
4
I was just thinking that 100 rounds of Parabellum weighs a lot even if the gun doesn't weigh anything at all.
That helical feed is clever. The Thompson drum magazine uses a spiral, and it never occurred to me that you could do the same with a helix.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at September 01, 2015 07:42 AM (+rSRq)
5
100 rounds of 9mm weighs just over 2.5 pounds.
-j
Posted by: J Greely at September 01, 2015 08:33 AM (ZlYZd)
6
The newest clip-fed pistol that I know is Grendel P10. The manufacture of it ceased in 1991.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at September 01, 2015 01:37 PM (RqRa5)
7
I looked up some images of the Calico 950. It looks like a great alternate-universe SF weapon. Apparently it's shown up in
Gunsmith Cats,
Armitage III, and
Vandred.
Have to wonder if that 100-round magazine is really practical. The 50 round looks reasonable, but the 100-round version is huge.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at September 01, 2015 08:59 PM (PiXy!)
8
Russians took a helical magazine SMG Bizon into inventory in the 90s. The capacity was 64 rounds of 9x18 or 53 rounds of 9x19. Bizon was superseded by a similar SMG Vityaz with a conventional magazine.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at September 01, 2015 09:45 PM (RqRa5)
9
The 100 round magazine was a lot more practical for plinking before ammo prices went up. Kind of wish I'd gotten the .22 version, not the 9mm; Easier on the pocketbook to fill the magazine.
Although I can say from personal experience, that a 9mm Calico with Hellfire trigger installed, and a 100 round magazine full of Vector illuminated ammo, is the closest thing to a laser rifle you'll find in real life.
That latter did teach me not to use chunks of wood for plinking targets, by the way: It's rather scary to see a line of light that represents your bullet enter the chunk, encounter a knot, and exit at 90 degrees...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at September 02, 2015 02:32 AM (L5yWw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 17, 2015
Stupid series naming conventions
These things come and go; there was a period in which series names were essentially nonsense, completely meaningless. There was a period when lots of series had English names.
And recently we've seen a trend towards series having ridiculously long names.
But the worst recent trend has been using increases in punctuation for sequels. Two examples spring immediately to mind: Dog Days, Dog Days', Dog Days'' and Working!, Working!!, Working!!!
I suppose with 50 or more new series each year, and a history going back to the 1980's, it's a bit hard to come up with something new, and fads never make sense anyway looking back at them, and often not even when you look at them contemporaneously. But it's still annoying. Grumble.
The biggest problem with this one is how you pronounce the names in order to differentiate them, which is why "Dog Days Dash" and "Dog Days Double-Dash" even though it's an apostrophe (') and not a dash (-). Me, I use "S2" and "S3".
UPDATE: I just looked it up, and ANN says it's Working!!, Working!!2, and Working!!3. That's a bit better, even if a bit unimaginative.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
12:50 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The official site uses the "Working!!!" nomenclature in Japanese. The "Wagnaria!!3" moniker is only used in English. It is invented by Japanese rights holders for international markets.
BTW, some of these have easy-to-pronounce phonetics, such as "hidamari hoshimitsu" or "hidamari tai hoshimitsu" for "Hidamari ☆☆☆". I would not be surprised if the above is actually "wokingu san-bai" or whatever.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at August 17, 2015 02:42 PM (RqRa5)
2
Heh, I was thinking Dog Days Prime and Double Prime.
Posted by: gaiaswill at August 17, 2015 06:48 PM (qSWGJ)
3
Well, the sequels were a little derivative... (grin, duck, run)
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at August 17, 2015 07:42 PM (pWQz4)
4
Gintama (circle thingee) did a little thing at the beginning of this season on how to pronounce the circle thingee. Their suggestion: they don't care, whatever you want is fine.
Posted by: wahsatchmo at August 18, 2015 02:18 PM (r4uXE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2015
Fang mail
I stopped posting to USS Clueless 11 years ago.
But occasionally people link to old posts of mine, like just happened last week when Ace did it.
And every once in a while I get fan mail, or perhaps "fang mail" would be more accurate: "This was a really neat post, but you should change it because it didn't include something I think is important."
RE this particular post, I think there is a tendency to oversimplify the idea you are presenting. It is often presented as "you need to be willing to do back to your enemy whatever your enemy is willing to do to you." I don't think game theory requires such literal Tit for Tat. It merely requires significant consequences for breaking the rules. For example, a credible threat to use Nuclear weapons if Biological weapons are deployed, would satisfy the significant consequences argument of game theory, without requiring a country to maintain stocks of Biological weapons or an open threat of Biological MAD. I think this is important, since it allows for some modifications of the Tit for Tat scenarios that avoid the danger of "turning into your enemy" in order to defeat him. You do not have to match an enemy brutality for brutality, as long as there exists some other way to punish the enemy for violations that has equal significance to him.
You don't actually get into this part of the question, but I think this might be a worthwhile update to consider to the post, since people are still reading it and it has been referenced by others as saying something to that effect.
I can't change it. Frustratingly, that server ("regulus") is sitting on my computer desk within arm's reach, but a couple of years ago Microsoft issued a Win 7 security update and now I can't access it either with telnet or with FTP. (It also fouled up my ability to access my WHS, "Deneb".) So I'm not capable of making any changes on it any more.
Even if I were inclined to do so, which I'm not. Dammit, I wrote that post in 2002! Let it rest, already! USS Clueless wasn't a series of academic papers, it was a fucking blog.
(I do have to admit that I get three of four letters a year from people who thank me for doing USS Clueless and who don't try to convince me to rewrite parts of it. And I am grateful.)
UPDATE: Besides which, I did write what he's saying, in a different post.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
05:38 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.
May 15, 2015
Grumble roundhouse kicks
In anime when someone who is an expert at karate does a roundhouse kick, they always, always, do it open-foot.
Which is stupid. That's not how it's done. My sensei taught us to fold our foot up and strike with the ball of the foot, just below the toes. This concentrates the force in a small area and doesn't risk your ankle.
If you kick open-foot, like in the picture above, you're going to break your ankle. You're also spreading the force over a much larger area so it is less effective.
You'd think that someone in the anime industry would go find some karate magazines to see what proper form looks like, wouldn't you?
(And while I'm at it, when you're defending against a punch or kick, you don't try to stop it. Instead, you deflect it. Putting your forearm up and taking a kick there is a good way to break your arm. Plus, deflecting the blow puts your enemy off balance and makes him vulnerable for a counter-strike.)
Grumble...
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
05:46 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
1
These days, Muai Thai fighters (and MMA fighters) do much of their kicking with the front of the lower leg, not the foot. Does more damage that way... but you have to practice it as well, ere you break your leg in the process.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 15, 2015 08:28 PM (jGQR+)
2
We have been informed that the "front of the lower leg" is more commonly known as "the shin." We regret any confusion this may have caused.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 15, 2015 11:09 PM (jGQR+)
3
"We have been informed..."
I was wondering which front part of the lower leg you were referring to that wasn't the shin.
If you look at training videos on youtube and articles elsewhere, it's mentioned in a few places to use the front of your foot while sparring. However, in an actual fight, the ball of the foot or the shin will do more damage. Not all of the videos or articles make the distinction, though. Some treat all of the strike points equally; some don't even mention using the ball of the foot or shin.
I wonder if this is an artifact from generations of movies that show martial arts using sparring techniques.
Posted by: Ben at May 16, 2015 07:47 AM (S4UJw)
4
"Train as you fight, fight as you train."
If they use open-foot in training it's a mistake. When you fall back on your reflexes you're liable to use the wrong technique and hurt yourself.
In a serious fight, a broken ankle would be fatal.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 16, 2015 10:08 AM (+rSRq)
5
Would a kick like the one in the lower right panel
here do damage?
The artist seems to avoid the roundhouse style when she does combat scenes.
Posted by: muon at May 17, 2015 04:32 AM (MpHlJ)
6
Well,
I wouldn't enjoy it.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 17, 2015 08:24 AM (jGQR+)
7
Muon, I think a kick like that could conceivably be very powerful, causing a bruise and possibly a concussion. Direct head shots are a lot more dangerous than you might think.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 17, 2015 09:17 AM (+rSRq)
8
Direct head shots are a lot more dangerous than you might think.
Yes.
Yes they are.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 17, 2015 05:27 PM (jGQR+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 16, 2015
F1 Melbourne 2015
I still can't comment over at Wonderduck's Pond, and I wanted to make some comments about the F1 season opener.
There were supposed to be 20 cars on the circuit. One team couldn't even get its cars to run; they didn't even try to qualify. One of the McLaren cars didn't reach the starting line on race day; its engine exploded.
And there were other misevents, and when all was said and done, the two cars from Mercedes finished 1-2, only about 2 seconds apart. Third place was fully 30 seconds behind that.
Only 11 cars finished the race. Which means every car but one got points. The one that didn't was the other McLaren, which apparently is using a 2-stroke lawn mower engine as its powerplant.
Mercedes performed the way they should. They did what they were supposed to do. Everyone else needs to go back and finish clown school. If the season continues like this, then this year will go down as the worst in F1 history.
They may as well toss a coin right now between Rosberg and Hamilton, award the winner the driver's championship, award the constructor championship to Mercedes, and call the whole season off. That'll give everyone enough time to design cars that work for 2016.
What's the problem? It's the assumption that they Must Have 10 Teams And 20 Cars every year. What this race proved is that it can't always be done. There are three teams which shouldn't even be participating this year, for one thing.
At the beginning of the season, before the first race day, there ought to be a season qualifier, where each team has to prove their cars can run 80 laps on some track, somewhere, at a reasonable speed. If they can't, they don't get to participate that year. If that means only 14 cars, so be it. If it only means 8 cars, such is life. At least you'll get a race season that isn't a gross embarassment.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
06:58 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The teams would probably go for that, as it would be another chance to actually run the cars to see what works and what doesn't. Currently, the rules limit testing to an incredible degree, and also limit the number of changes you can make to various bits from the previous year, and then drop a limit on when those changes are mostly locked in for the rest of the season. Basically, the teams have to design everything in isolation, put it together for one week of testing in Jerez, and if they don't get any problems sorted in that week, they're pretty much screwed for the whole season.
Posted by: David at March 16, 2015 07:09 PM (+TPAa)
2
Speaking as an engineer, reducing testing is
ALWAYS a bad thing, because nothing ever works quite like the engineers think it will.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 16, 2015 07:50 PM (+rSRq)
3
The problem with only running a limited number of cars is that it sucks for the fans, especially if those cars spread out after lap 1; it's like, hey, what we have here is a high-speed parade, not a -race-. And it was a pretty crappy race as they go. You can have a good race even if someone's in first place by a mile, so long as there's action somewhere on the track, but if there's not, well...
Developing F1 cars is expensive, and there's only so much money in the sport, and an awful lot of that money goes directly to an investment company who got control of the racing league through some -extremely- suspicious business deals a long time back. Nobody, not a single team on the track, turns a profit from winnings. Red Bull is only doing it for the sports drink advertising. Ferrari is mostly in it for the brand prestige, even though they get a special extra hundred million a year for Being Ferrari. The bottom-ranked teams are trying to compete with teams spending six and eight and ten times as much as they can possibly afford and it makes it extremely difficult to make a better-performing car.
It's not "well, duh, go make it faster." Any team on the track could make their car faster in a dozen ways without even really exerting their brains. It's "make it go faster within the confines of an absolutely byzantine set of specifications, rules, limits, where many of your most creative ideas will let you do better for a race or two before the league bans them." (That's happened a couple times in the last two seasons - with "blown diffusers" that vented exhaust over aerodynamic elements for extra downforce, and with Mercedes' "double DRS" system which vented air all the way from the rear wing to the front wing to "stall" the front wing and allow for downforce-reduction on straights). Wonderduck has occasionally paraded an entire cavalcade of "funnies" put forth by people thinking outside the box in past years... cars that had fans to suck themselves to the pavement, cars with more than four wheels, all sorts of wild stuff.
And when you do think of something, you simply can't try it out. You're not even allowed to go try it out, except for a small testing period in the off-season. You can't run your call at all during the season except for a short testing break and on race weekend in designated practice times (and on the track, which is why it was so important that Button finish the race with his dog of a car; that's 58 laps of data he brought home!)
The real limiter, though, is the contracts. The various circuits have contracts with F1 and F1 promises to deliver, reportedly, 16 running cars. If F1 doesn't do that, they're in breach, and that's a lot of money loose on the table. More to the point, F1 pulls hundreds of millions of dollars a year out of the sport and doesn't put too much back in; it can't afford a stoppage, because the risk of the teams and the tracks and some other bright boy with a silver tongue and a bit less greed could literally rip the entire structure out from under the league. It'd be a hell of a way to end things... and it would have happened ages ago if F1 wasn't so good about playing the teams off against each other.
The first race last year was pretty bad too - lots of cars dropping out for technical problems, Riccardio's 2nd place finish in his rookie drive DQ'ed for technical issues, etc. They usually get the major bugs out pretty fast.
(Yeesh, I went on a bit...)
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at March 16, 2015 08:22 PM (a38fD)
4
It's the assumption that they Must Have 10 Teams And 20 Cars every year.
The contracts between F1 and Race Organizers don't actually assume this. The minimum number of cars making actual attempts at racing at the event is 16. According to the definition of the contracts, we had 20 cars attempting to run at Australia. Only a software problem prevented Manor from doing so.
We had one driver withdraw due to a back injury after qualifying; the regs say that a driver has to participate in one session during the weekend to be allowed to race, and since the injury occurred during the final session before the race, the team could not replace him.
One car had an engine failure on the way to the grid. Regrettable, but not unheard of, particularly for an new and untested lump. Another car had a gearbox problem; considering how precise F1 gearboxes are, it surprises me we don't have more of those.
So there you have five cars not taking the start. None of the circumstances could have been expected.
There are three teams which shouldn't even be participating this year, for one thing.
Whoa there, hoss. I can only assume you're thinking Manor, McLaren and Lotus here. Manor, you can make an argument for exclusion. McLaren? A new engine manufacturer, and you want to kick out one of the Big Three in F1? The only way you can improve is by doing; if you prevent them from doing, you prevent them from improving. Lotus managed to turn zero official laps on Sunday. One car was knocked out due to an accident not of the team's making, the other suffered an engine fault... and Renault engines seem to be bad this year, kinda like last year.
There's a lot of things wrong with F1. Excluding teams isn't going to cure them.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 16, 2015 08:22 PM (jGQR+)
5
What I was thinking was Manor, Lotus, and Toro Rosso.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 16, 2015 08:42 PM (+rSRq)
6
Toro Rosso finished 9th and a late DNF by their 17 year old rookie driver, Max Verstappen. They qual'd 8th and 12th, perfectly respectable. You can actually argue that they're doing better with the bad Renault engine than Red Bull is, in that they have been more consistent with it.
Speaking of Red Bull, please note that they qual'd 7th and 13th, and finished 6th and "did not start (failed gearbox)". Not all that much better than their junior team.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 16, 2015 09:32 PM (jGQR+)
7
Yeah, both Lotus and Toro Rosso were lookin' pretty racy this year. And for once, Maldonado's crash wasn't his fault! Heh.
Sauber also did quite a bit better than anyone was expecting, for a team whose owner had to -hide from the court bailiffs- to avoid having their cars repossessed by an irate driver. (There's your financial problems...)
Manor is the long shot, though ol' Marussia was the best of the back-markers last year and actually put some points on the board. Of course even then it was by hanging on as Monaco took a toll of the cars up front, but hey, that counts too. Damn shame about what happened in Japan though.
If anything, Force India should have been on your list - they're running better than McLaren, but not by much.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at March 16, 2015 09:52 PM (a38fD)
8
Yeah, both Lotus and Toro Rosso were lookin' pretty racy this year.
"Racy" compared to what?
Neither Lotus finished, and Toro Rosso's one car that did finish was lapped.
Toro Rosso is Red Bull's younger brother, wearing BigBro's castoffs. (I have an older brother; I know how that is.)
Anyway, I'm not making that comment based on a single race; I'm basing it on several years. The three teams I mentioned have not been competitive for the last few years, if they ever were.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 16, 2015 10:23 PM (+rSRq)
9
I'm not making that comment based on a single race; I'm basing it on
several years. The three teams I mentioned have not been competitive for
the last few years, if they ever were.
Two years ago, Lotus were 4th in the Constructor's championship, had one win, were on the podium 14 times, and looked poised to make the permanent jump to The Big Time. They've been remarkably creative in their designs, though that hasn't paid off as well as it should. They were definitely let down by the Renault power plant last year (and probably this).
It's true, Toro Rosso has never challenged for wins (save for one fluke wet race in Italy with some kid named Vettel driving for them). However, they are solid runners that occasionally surprise the bigger teams. They have experience, and financially they appear to be secure.
Manor... well, we know about their nightmarish financial problems. They may still go away.
But F1 has always been a sport about the Haves and the Have Nots. The teams that can throw money at their problems do better than those that can't (exception: Toyota). If you limit entries to teams that can pony up $150million or more per season, you're only going to have three or four teams.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 16, 2015 11:17 PM (jGQR+)
10
You haven't explained why that would be a bad thing.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at March 17, 2015 06:29 AM (+rSRq)
11
You haven't explained why it would be a GOOD thing.
Posted by: Wonderduck at March 17, 2015 09:10 AM (jGQR+)
12
Uh. I explained why it would be a bad thing, right?
At the end of the day, the circuits have to have people showing up to pay the ticket prices or the circuits don't make money, and if the circuits don't make money they close (or at any rate don't host F1, which costs them a lot of money whether anyone shows up or not).
Having a lot of cars on the track is much better for the fans at the track. You can run F1 with a very small number of cars - it's been done in the past - but those are not typically very "good" races, as they don't stay in a pack. The faster guys start out in front and pull away, and the slower guys fall behind, and after a few laps nobody's really racing the other drivers anymore, because everyone's spaced out.
More cars on the track means that more cars are in proximity to each other. F1 cars are hard to pass under ordinary circumstances - if you don't have optimal airflow, your aero doesn't work as well to keep you stuck on the track, and "behind some other car" is very non-optimal airflow. (That's fine if you're on the straight, 'coz you don't want that drag right then - but sucks going into a turn, when you really need the downforce!) Even a small difference in performance can be magnified when the slower guy is up front.
(This is also why F1 plays games with the tires. They COULD easily get tires that would run the whole race just fine, but they want pit stops, because that shakes up the running order of the field and shakes up the parade...)
So even the slower guys are contributing, in their own way, so long as they're not SO slow that they become a "mobile chicane" instead of a fellow competitor.
Now, another solution that's been floated is to have fewer total teams, but have each of them running more cars. The teams hate this solution because those cars aren't free! More cars means more engines, more chassis, more drivers who need to get paid, more mechanics, more tools and support equipment, and you're shipping that stuff all over the world too. And the lower-ranked teams don't get all that much of the prize money, so even if you just chopped off everything, and had the top five teams and four cars each, the extra money you'd save in prizes might not cover the added expenses.
On the other hand, if you're running more cars per team, you're guaranteeing that there are several cars in the same performance band, which can make for some exciting racing. On the gripping hand, the teams hate it when their guys are racing each other hard, because one slip and suddenly they're out two cars! A lot of teams simply don't permit it; it was something of a miracle that Mercedes let Rosberg and Hamilton go at it like wild men last year for as long as they did, and eventually Rosberg hit Hamilton and got the riot act read to him for it.
But if you don't have enough cars on track, you don't have enough butts in seats, and if tracks don't make enough money from tickets they don't put on the show. Nominally it would be possible for F1 to reduce the fees to the point where the lower dollars were sustainable... or they could pay out enough in prizes further down the ladder that teams could survive in lower positions without going bankrupt in the first place.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at March 17, 2015 01:02 PM (zJsIy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 08, 2014
Thomas Duncan dies
I have very mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, it's natural to feel sorry for the guy, since he died horribly. But on another level I'm having a difficult time suppressing feelings of hatred for him.
He knew he was infected with Ebola when he came to the US. He did it because he thought he might get better medical care here, and maybe have a better chance of surviving.
So, in hopes that he himself would survive he decided to risk 300 million Americans getting the same disease, including the family members he was visiting.
No one wants to die, but risking others without their permission or knowledge to save yourself is wrong, evil, hideous, monstrous.
And it didn't save him. He died anyway, but because of him who knows how many Americans might now die?
UPDATE: Potentially or actually sacrificing others to save yourself is cowardice. Heroism is to sacrifice yourself to save others, like this guy. Him I'll mourn. But not Thomas Duncan; he doesn't deserve it.
UPDATE: Brickmuppet is less vindictive than I am.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
10:26 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My thoughts exactly. A bit of justice for the scumbag. Unfortunately we wasted a lot of resources on prolonging his worthless existence.
There's a certain silver lining in getting acquianted with Ebola through a high-profile case instead of a massive terror attack. Shows how incompetent and politicized our disease control has become, so perhaps something could be done about it.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at October 08, 2014 11:12 AM (RqRa5)
2
I tend to agree with you. With some care, he might have actually traveled to the US for medical care safely. Stewardesses might have asked why he was wearing gloves and a face mask, but he could have done it. And didn't bother.
And then he gets here, and takes no precautions at all, knowing he carries a deadly contagious illness. The guy had no concern at all about the welfare of others, if it conflicted, not with his survival, but even his convenience.
But you could say the same of our 'leaders', who have been so stubborn about not defending our nation against an influx of plague carriers.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at October 09, 2014 02:36 AM (L5yWw)
Posted by: muon at October 10, 2014 04:40 AM (XIprt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 25, 2014
Imminent threat
One of the big talking points last decade was the idea that we can't preemptively attack to relieve a threat unless the threat is "imminent". That always annoyed me; it amounts to saying, "Don't fight the forest fire until you can see flames from your front porch."
It never made sense. The best time to fight a big fire is before it gets big, and the best time to deal with a threat is before it becomes imminent. (And the best way to fix a software bug is to prevent it in the first place.)
And now that Obama has finally started taking the threat of radical Islam seriously (or at least is pretending to), the usual suspects are talking about whether the threat is "imminent" again -- albeit in muted voices, because Obama is a Democrat, a Progessive, and an African-American. Don't wanna be racist, donchaknow...
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
03:16 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm not so concerned about whether the threat is imminent, but I'm getting kind of annoyed with Mr. "I don't need Congress for anything", and his opinion that he doesn't need laws or declarations of war to do anything he wants, anything at all. Just his pen, and his phone, and enough votes in the Senate that he can't be convicted.
Government is a terrifically dangerous institution, and the rule of law is one of those few things that actually restrains that danger. And Obama displays his contempt for that on a daily basis. If it isn't invading other countries, and blowing off the war powers act, it's canceling our immigration laws, or waiving black letter features in the ACA because having them kick in before the next election might hurt.
I don't think the guy is going to cancel the next Presidential election, and declare himself President for Life. Too much chance of getting shot, and he's got his
palacePresidential Library awaiting him in Hawaii, and the lifestyle of the rich and famous to enjoy for the rest of his life. But the next President likely will take up from where he finished the destruction of the rule of law, and maybe she, or the one after, will decide that elections are too annoying to even bother rigging.
Unless this gets stopped now, and his dictatorial ways get repudiated.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at September 26, 2014 02:02 AM (F15D0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 25, 2014
Si vis pacem, para bellum
A couple of months ago I got involved in an email exchange with a gun control fan, who asked me why there was a Second Amendment and why people like me thought it was so important. Here's what I wrote back to him:
Alright, I'll try to explain the theory. You're not going to like this, and it's going to strike you as being tinfoil hat territory, but work with me here.
Let's rewind back to 1789 when the Bill of Rights was written. It was only 6 years since the Revolution ended. And the early battles of the Revolution were fought by men using their own weapons. (That's what the Patriots used in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, for example.) Those who wrote the Bill of Rights were acutely aware that the only reason the Revolution was possible was because of widespread ownership of guns.
The Revolution was fought because the British government was perceived to have become tyrannical, and the Founders were well aware that the new government they were establishing could in turn become tyrannical. They included lots of checks and limits on the government, but knew that in the end the only sure way to prevent that was if the people had the means to rise in revolution, again.
The Second Amendment is the ultimate check. That's why it was included in the Bill of Rights.
This is what you're not going to like: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the US are sufficiently well armed to fight a revolution, if a new one is needed. That's what the "militia" referred to in it is about: in that time the word "militia" referred to the kind of thing that happened in Boston at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, where all able bodied men grabbed their own guns and fought on behalf of the community.
Which means that issues like hunting or self defense are a distraction. The Second Amendment is about allowing citizens to own weapons which are good enough to permit them to fight against a tyrant's army and win.
In 1789 that meant muzzle-loaded muskets, because that's what the British Army (and the Hessians) were using. In our time it means the AR-15 and similar weapons.
Now to continue this, one of the reasons that a lot of conservatives object to establishment of gun-owner registries is that historically, just about the first thing a tyrant does is to collect all the weapons owned by citizens, so that they no longer are able to rise in revolt. Then there's no check left to stop him. A gun registry would make that a lot easier.
I'm not saying I think that we need a new revolution. What I am saying is that the presence of a huge and powerful arsenal in the hands of private citizens acts as a tremendous deterrent for anyone thinking of trying to establish a tyranny, because the would-be tyrant knows that a revolution is possible.
Arguably so far it's worked.
The Romans said, "Si vis pacem, para bellum". If you seek peace, prepare for war. (That's where the name of the 9x19 Parabellum cartridge comes from.)
The Second Amendment permits the citizens of the United States to prepare for war, in service of seeking peace.
And it is precisely "slaughtering lots of men" which is protected, because in a revolution that's what you have to do.
It isn't a perfect solution, but there aren't any others which have been as successful.
Does that mean I think we need to be able to buy machine guns? No, I'm happy with that ban. Semi-auto rifles are good enough; the fire-rate difference isn't significant enough to be prohibitive. But I do think it means we citizens should be able to buy semi-auto rifles and large magazines, because in the world as it is now you need that much, at least, to be able to fight a revolution come the day.
The Gun Grabbers use "It's for the children" and similar arguments in favor of gun bans, and focus in on school shootings (which are really very rare, in fact) and lone nutcases attacking shopping malls. "Gee, if only no one had any guns, this wouldn't happen."
But that's not really what they fear. It isn't guns in the hands of lone nutcases or jihadis that they fear. It's guns in the hands of law-abiding conservatives. It's because the left wing wants to establish a tyranny, but knows it can't because of all those gun owners. The Second Amendment, even today, is doing what the founders wanted it to, by establishing a huge deterrent.
Arguments about hunting and self defense all (deliberately) miss the point. "Why does anyone need an AR-15"?
Well, two answers to that. First, since when did anyone in this country have to prove they needed something in order to own it?
Second, come the revolution (God forbid) it's going to take weapons like that to win.
We aren't to that point yet, and my argument is that the existence of a huge and powerful arsenal in private hands will prevent us from coming to that point. The fact that the American people have the means to rise in revolution means we won't ever have to.
The people of America are prepared for war, in the service of seeking peace.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
05:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 903 words, total size 5 kb.
March 25, 2014
Usage note
I've run into this several times in the last week:
"diffuse" means "diluted, spread out".
"defuse" means "to render harmless".
That is all. As you were.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Rants at
09:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
66kb generated in CPU 0.0184, elapsed 0.161 seconds.
45 queries taking 0.1488 seconds, 121 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.