May 17, 2012
111.13.8.19
I've been sitting here all day watching as I get huge numbers of refers from all over, to 8+ year old posts on USS Clueless. And the IP is always the same: 111.13.8.19
He crawled kuro5hin.org, and followed the few links there to me. He crawled janegalt.net. He crawled freerepublic.com. He crawled drweevil.org. johnquiggin.com. gnxp.com.
And he just found ai.mee.nu. I fear he's eventually going to crawl my server and hammer it into the ground.
So who is this wonderful person? A reverse DNS fails. APNIC says it belongs to China Mobile Communications Corporation. So is it a gutsy user with lots of money to pay for bandwidth? Or is it the government of China looking for things to block in the Great Firewall? Or maybe some native Chinese search engine's crawler.
Christ knows. I was seriously considering blocking him in my firewall, but if it's really a citizen in China, looking at conservative web sites, I don't really want to exclude him.
UPDATE: You know, you can hunt all through the APNIC web site and if you can find any indication of where in hell it's located, you're better than I am. Even the job listings don't say where they are.
I had to visit Wikipedia to find out that it's in Brisbane.
UPDATE: Our friend just found bojack.org and samizdata.net. Also perfidy.org. ashbrook.org.
UPDATE: He just started dumping my site.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
05:10 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It seems... unlikely... that it's a sole user, don't you think?
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 17, 2012 06:38 PM (6CHh4)
2
It's running way to fast for it to be someone sitting at a browser. But it's not impossible that it's someone's personal computer running a massive crawler.
I think it's far more likely to be someone gathering information for a search engine, though. It doesn't seem like the government would use an IP from that block.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 17, 2012 07:18 PM (+rSRq)
3
Actually, there's another possibility: it could be the government testing the Great Firewall.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 17, 2012 07:19 PM (+rSRq)
4
It's most likely just a spambot or fake site bot, looking for raw materials. These days spambots can generate seemingly intelligible spam posts according to content of the blog it's posting on; and fake sites with entirely copied content have been around for some time, generally used to affect search engine results.
Posted by: cuc at May 18, 2012 12:00 AM (AOjlv)
5
And the majority of blog comment spam I see these days originated from China.
Posted by: cuc at May 18, 2012 12:01 AM (AOjlv)
6
I've known page sucking/Mirroring programs that if not set up correctly will try to download the entire internet. They can be particularly annoying if they hit a sort of infinite loop (common with the CopperMine photo gallery) and really suck up your bandwidth allotment.
Posted by: Mauser at May 18, 2012 12:25 AM (cZPoz)
7
I'd be interested to know if it's just getting the HTML, or if it's actually requesting the images as well. If it's ignoring the images, it's probably a search engine.
Posted by: David at May 18, 2012 08:12 AM (+yn5x)
8
No, it isn't taking pictures. But that doesn't preclude it from being the Chinese government.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 18, 2012 08:50 AM (+rSRq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 09, 2012
Today's sad refer
I sometimes see google searches in my refer that I think are noteworthy. Here's one that makes me a bit sad:
who+were+we+fighting+in+world+war+1
Whoever this is, why didn't they learn about that in school history class? Unfortunately, that's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.
For the record: once things settled down and everyone was involved, on one side the major players were Imperial Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottomans (Turkey). On the other side the big teams were Britain, France, Italy, Imperial Russia, and eventually, the United States. There were a lot of other countries involved (e.g. Belgium, Canada) to a greater or lesser extent on one side or the other but few of them made much difference at all.
Imperial Russia was knocked out of the war by the Russian Revolution, about the same time that the US began sending significant forces to France.
And who won? Well, pretty much no one. Austria lost the worst, Germany probably second worst. The US lost 117,000 dead and didn't really gain anything out of the war, but among the big players that was the best outcome. So I guess it would be fair to say that the US was the best loser, if that makes any sense. Maybe, we could say the US lost the least.
The war formally ended with the Treaty of Versailles, which in my opinion is the most misbegotten, ill-conceived "peace treaty" in all of history. It pretty much guaranteed another war, and starting in 1939 we got it. "World War II" really should have been called "World War I, the next generation" or "WWI part 2" or maybe "Son of WWI", because that's what it was.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
01:18 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It goes without saying that this is a simplistic explanation, though it could be too complex for your googler.
If we were cruel, it could be fun to explain that Japan fought on one side in WWI and on the other in WWII, just to watch the resulting brain explosion.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 09, 2012 05:08 PM (6CHh4)
2
Not to mention Italy...
Posted by: DrHeinous at May 09, 2012 06:14 PM (bU+xB)
3
I had a mention of Japan's involvement in WWI but took it out.
Besides, Italy was on three sides in the two wars, just to make things even more confusing. For that matter, France was on three sides in just WWII, depending on how you count. (A different way to put it, and perhaps more fair, is that Italy changed sides in WWII and France changed sides twice.)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 09, 2012 06:14 PM (+rSRq)
4
In case anyone's curious, the IP belonged to a school district in Minnesota. So perhaps some student really was learning history. We can only hope.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 09, 2012 06:16 PM (+rSRq)
5
"World War 2: War Harder! Now with ten times more science fiction, and ten times less moral ambiguity!"
Posted by: metaphysician at May 09, 2012 07:03 PM (3GCAl)
6
WWI certainly is morally ambiguous, because it's really difficult to explain just why in hell it even happened. That assassination in Serbia was the spark that set off the first powder keg, but it didn't build the stack of powder kegs which eventually exploded. And if that assassination hadn't happened, eventually something else would have set it all off.
I suppose that it could be argued that it was the last manifestation of the Sport of Kings. There were a lot of leaders who, deep down, wanted a war (most notably Kaiser Wilhelm II). Of course, they expected to win easily; no one really understood just how terrible it was going to end up being.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 09, 2012 07:26 PM (+rSRq)
7
Another ambiguity: the history books are pretty dry on the subject, but American opinion was significantly divided on the war. The number of people jailed in the U.S. for sedition because they stated their opposition to "President Wilson's war" was around 1,000.
The Espionage and Sedition acts were passed in 1917 and 1918, theoretically to address mob violence
against opponents of the war.
That's right, the government decided it needed the power to keep domestic order by shutting up the dissenters.
Support for the bills broke mostly along party lines, with the Republicans in opposition, but they were passed by wide margins.
Posted by: ubu at May 09, 2012 07:44 PM (GfCSm)
8
European empires of the age were badly screwed up. Kaiser was somewhat crazy or at least quite eccentric, if memoirs of Von Brullow and the like are to be believed. Emeror was a chickenhead - consequences of royal family inbreeding gone bad. Tzar wasn't that daft, but he was just as insulated from reality like the rest of them. French, I think, had a republic at the time, although I am not sure. They used to change their government styles like socks. Britain was probably the sanest of the bunch, but managed to build defensive treaties with France. So it all had to collapse sooner or later. I am quite annoyed that they didn't learn the lesson first time around though.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at May 09, 2012 07:47 PM (5OBKC)
9
The French were indeed a republic at the time, but their constitution gave their military leadership a rather astonishing level of independence. Among other things, they concealed from the civilian government evidence of how badly things were going in the first few weeks of the war, until the flood of refugees was utterly obvious, as well as the audibility of guns from the outskirts of Paris.
Wilhelm is a little complicated, historians are still arguing over his intentions and capabilities. He seemed to be playing diplomatic chicken, and appeared to be quite surprised when the war did break out. He also simply did not understand why he couldn't rearrange the alliances of Europe to be democracies versus monarchies.
And even at the time, the idiocy of the Treaty of Versailles was widely recognized, but ignored. (Sort of like how hundreds of economists were pointing out the bubble in housing prices?) The French commander who was perhaps most famous at the end of the war, Marshal Foch, called the treaty "a truce for twenty years" and he was almost exactly accurate as to the timing.
Posted by: Boviate at May 09, 2012 08:09 PM (63JPq)
10
Another notable event that most people haven't heard of is the mutiny of the French army.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 09, 2012 08:20 PM (+rSRq)
11
Sadly, almost everything I know about the Great War comes from Soviet sources. Obviously, nobody there cared much about the French mutiny, the serial defeats that Russians received in Poland received a muted coverage, but Brusilov's victory over Austians was written up as an astonishing military genius (so when Germans cut up Soviet defences in 1941, they were considered students of Brusilov's doctrine). I heard that Big Berta existed, however.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at May 09, 2012 08:31 PM (5OBKC)
12
I think it makes more sense as a continuation of the Great Game, with some elements dating back to the late 19th-century wars, some to the colonization/imperialism scramble, and some old grudges dating back to the 30-Years' War and beyond. The various leaderships lost control of the strategic situation and almost seemed to mulishly sit there like a pair of Zax.
I have a hard time grokking the feelings and sensibilities of the time, both among the public and their rulers/representatives, but I can kinda maybe see it if I squint just right. I find things like Civ and Total War to actually be rather helpful in getting into the mindset, especially when backed by lots of Wikipedia. It's just so alien if you don't grow up steeped in that feudal history and mindset.
I do remember one rather good piece that Rev. Sensing wrote some years ago, about how French taxis were indirectly responsible for a hundred million murders, or somesuch; it was a counter-factual that posited that if Germany had won in 1914, it would have taken a province that they'd been squabbling over for decades, and that probably would have been that. Without the destruction of an entire generation (between the war and the flu), and the malaise that accompanied it, would the radical collectivist utopians still have succeeded? Could we possibly been worse off with kings and princes than with Fuhrers and commissars?
Posted by: BigD at May 09, 2012 09:23 PM (qLkdZ)
13
Even I didn't learn much about the first war in school. Had to go hunt down books on my own. (We did read "All Quiet" in English class at one point, though.) Picked up Keegan's book on it, quite a good survey. It's WAY easier to find material about WW2 (though, well, WW1 was not always interesting, hm?)
Basically it all came down to the Franco-Prussian War and the impact of mobilization of conscript infantry. If your potential enemy mobilized, then you had to mobilize too; to delay even a week risked losing a war by default.
Germany's position between two hostile powers meant they had to either go to war aggressively, or not go at all - they couldn't afford to fully commit against Russia with France at their back, or vice versa. They had a plan for a quick defeat of France, and it almost worked, but in the end it couldn't have - there just wasn't the road density to move enough troops where they needed them to go, and nobody had built out any significant quantities of non-train motor transport. But they came a lot closer than they had any right to...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at May 09, 2012 10:32 PM (GJQTS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 07, 2012
The changing solar system
I read a minor rant one time by Larry Niven, that went something like this: "How the hell are we supposed to write SF about the Solar System when you astronomers keep changing everything?"
I think it was a comment about his story "The Coldest Place", which assumed that Mercury was tide locked, and its dark side was eternally dark and very cold. It actually turns out that Mercury is tide-locked, but it's in a 3:2 resonance. Basically, a Mercury day is 1.5 Mercury years long. But it means that all parts of the surface are exposed to the sun about half the time.
I'm rereading Heinlein's novel "Space Cadet", which is subject to a bit of that. I just encountered a scene where Pete, from Ganymede, mentions that the surface gravity there is 32% of Earth. And it occurred to me that this might have been subject to revision.
I was right. The current estimate is that the surface gravity is 14.6%. The earlier estimate was based on guesses about the moon's internal composition, which assumed it was about like Earth: rock and metal. We now know that there's a hundreds-of-miles-thick layer of ice, which is a lot less dense.
The mass of Ganymede was calculated based on how it affected Galileo's flybys, so it's very accurate. The earlier number was little better than an educated guess.
The last third or so of this book is where things really changed the most, though. It was written back when the orthodoxy (at least in SF) was that the surface of Venus was a jungle. Of course we now know it ain't so. The surface of Venus is the closest approximation in the Solar System of traditional Hell. There is no life on Venus and there never will be. The temperature on the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.
None of which takes away from enjoying the story, of course. But it's interesting to think about just how much the Solar System has changed during my lifetime -- or at least, how much our conception of it has changed.
When I was a kid, there were nine planets. Now there are only eight.
UPDATE: They changed things on me again. Now the orthodoxy is that Mercury's day is two Mercury years.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
05:59 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I write science fiction. I have a pretty elaborate "universe" set up, too.
...I'm just
waiting for Kepler to discover planets in the "wrong" places around nearby stars....
Posted by: atomic_fungus at May 07, 2012 06:23 PM (E1y9u)
2
What would you consider to be wrong? The planetary search so far has found planets in all kinds of strange orbits, like planets larger than Jupiter in orbits closer than Mercury.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 07, 2012 07:22 PM (+rSRq)
3
So clearly the inhabitants of Mercury are nomadic, taking two years to migrate around the planet.
Posted by: Mauser at May 08, 2012 12:01 AM (cZPoz)
4
Including gas giants in the blue zone, IIRC, one of the more friendly configurations for sci-fi writing.
As for Venus, writers haven't totally written it off. There's still the potential for extremophiles and/or high altitude microorganisms. Certainly you aren't going to find jungles and natives, though.
Posted by: metaphysician at May 08, 2012 05:26 AM (3GCAl)
5
Apparently, at about 50 km above Venus' surface, the environment is the "most Earthlike in the solar system" (whatever that means). And because the atmosphere is very dense, breathable air will rise, giving rise to lots of absurd speculation about floating cities on Venus. There's even an article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_city_%28science_fiction%29#Venus
The notion of living there would still be pretty terrifying.
Posted by: Mark at May 08, 2012 06:26 AM (aUPJJ)
6
"Wrong" would be anything that invalidates my setting. Meaning, "wrong for me".
Okay, if I say--in my story--that Gliese 691 has an Earthlike planet just close enough that it gives it kind of a cool and drizzly climate, and Kepler finds one of those superhot superjovian planets less than 50,000,000 miles from the star and nothing else: that's an example of finding a planet in the "wrong" place.
And it'd be an example of astronomers invalidating SF with an ugly reality....
Worse, if they go ahead and discover that none of the close-by (within 60 light years) G- and F-class stars have Earthlike planets? Then I'm
really screwed, because I either have to totally change the colonial expansion of Man into the stars, or else ignore the latest science and say, "I don't care! There's an Earthlike world orbiting Pollux!"
(I do admit that I lean towards the latter. "Never let the facts get in the way of good fiction!")
Posted by: atomic_fungus at May 08, 2012 06:42 AM (E1y9u)
7
So things like "Tau Ceti seems to have a large disc of dust and rocks, but there is no evidence yet that there are any planets." Right?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 08, 2012 07:37 AM (+rSRq)
8
I think it is time for the MST3K mantra or variation thereof, to be applied to science-fiction. Or a load of handwavium. Though even those two are not enough to fix Joss Whedon's efforts.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at May 08, 2012 12:05 PM (QzVZ+)
9
Yes,
exactly like that. *sigh* There isn't supposed to be a "large disk of dust and rocks" there until after about 2130 AD....
Posted by: atomic_fungus at May 08, 2012 01:09 PM (E1y9u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2012
Mommy, what's a buggy whip?
Here's someone asking what a "carriage return" is.
I learned to type on a manual typewriter. Summer school between 6th and 7th grade. And if you want to know it, that was the single most valuable course I took in all my years of schooling.
And part of learning it was using the carriage return. And now there are people who don't even know what they are... sob, I'm getting old...
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
12:13 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You can tell the age of a computer keyboard by whether the key says "Return" or 'Enter" on it.
But yes, a touch-typing class in high school was one of the most valuable classes I had there. Although spending countless hours on BBS's and later on a text-based MUCK really refined my skills and speed.
(I still need to break the habit of backspacing multiple words out of existence to fix a typo rather than using the mouse).
Posted by: Mauser at May 05, 2012 12:48 PM (cZPoz)
2
Even in the earliest ASCII iteration, though, a carriage return was kept separate from a line feed, and with the various text editors using CR, LF, CR/LF, and LF/CR to represent different things almost at random, I guess questions about it were inevitable.
Just be glad you can provide that knowledge to the next generation. Otherwise we might get ubiquitous word processors that use VT to mark paragraphs.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2012 01:04 PM (4njWT)
3
I too, consider the touch-typing course I took in high school to be the single most useful class I ever took in public school.
...but I learned on an IBM Selectric ("the electric typewriter with the little type ball" for those born after 1990) rather than a full-manual. But I had used full-manual typewriters before that, so I knew what "return" was doing.
Posted by: atomic_fungus at May 05, 2012 02:15 PM (vq4t5)
4
Back in my school days, I had to take typing on electric typewriters. Before that, I had a manual typewriter and later an electric typewriter, and had to replace typewriter ribbon. The latter was drafted for several years to do my reports, even after I got a PC, because the serial port on the hand-me-down PC did not work (Thus no printers - and back in those days, we used serial ports and not USB for connecting the printer to the computer.).
Last month, after I posted about the Kickstarter campaign for Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns CRPGs on the Fandom Post, I had someone ask what a CRPG (Computer Role Playing Game) was. Sob...
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at May 05, 2012 03:24 PM (QzVZ+)
5
Typing was the only course I failed in high school.
It was also the only course I took that would have been of any significant use to me in life after high school (computer programmer, then writer).
Figures.
I still hunt and peck (at about 40wpm, though).
Posted by: Toren at May 05, 2012 04:32 PM (tcSL4)
6
I failed it too. Although in my case it was because I got roughhoused at school and my finger was broken in the altercation. Even though it was only a couple of weeks after the beginning of the school year, they wouldn't let me change to another course. I still managed to get enough out of it to be a ten-fingered typist, but not a good one.
That was my last year at that school; my parents pulled me out and sent me to private school (at great expense) afterwards.
Posted by: ubu at May 05, 2012 04:52 PM (GfCSm)
7
I took the typing class in seventh grade. I'm fairly sure it was on electric typewriters; while the school was in a poor neighborhood, that the gifted and creative arts programs were contained therein made sure that it was well-funded.
I don't remember what grade I got in it, though I'm fairly sure it wasn't a good one. To this day, I type in a unique, Wonderduck-centric style that typing teachers would loathe. Still effective, though: 80wpm last time I was tested.
Posted by: Wonderduck at May 05, 2012 05:02 PM (6CHh4)
8
We actually had an old typewriter. Didn't work very well, which was actually great, since that meant it was "a thing the kids can play with" rather than "an expensive thing kids don't get to play with".
Got replaced by an actual word processor. Remember those? Then that got replaced by a 286...
By the time I got to typing class in middle school, I was proficient enough to test out of it. Just as well, I would have been rather bored...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at May 05, 2012 05:16 PM (GJQTS)
9
When I was in grade school, my mom liked to visit places like St. Vincent de Paul, which collected junk and sold it cheap. I guess they were in the same business as Goodwill back then.
She didn't mind if we bought junk and brought it home. My brother and I did a lot of that, buying old radios and tearing them apart to take out all the resistors and capacitors, for instance.
One time I bought a manual typewriter which wasn't working properly, and took it apart (somewhat!) and put it back together.
And it worked afterwards, but I had a couple of pieces left. I never noticed anything that didn't work, so I still wonder just what those pieces were for?
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 05, 2012 05:45 PM (+rSRq)
10
And it worked afterwards, but I had a couple of pieces left. I never noticed anything that didn't work, so I still wonder just what those pieces were for?
I can think of many, many situations where 'a couple of pieces left' after reassembling a machine would cause an immediate scramble for the exit.
Strangely enough, I do not remember using word processors. I probably did in my typing class, since I remember sessions where I typed the lesson and only after I was finished did everything come spitting out in one long chatter of type. Which reminded me of the tractor feed printer I had once upon the time for my Commodore 128.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at May 05, 2012 06:41 PM (QzVZ+)
11
Oooh, there's a common experience. I once found an old manual Underwood with a cracked upper frame, and I fixed it up and used that to type school reports. I'm not sure what happened to that giant hunk of cast iron, but I think my folks ended up with it and eventually threw it out. I also used to desolder all the components from failed electronics, including a tube-based color TV. I think I still have a box full of that junk somewhere.
The one place where typing class has done me a disservice is that I end sentences with a double-space, and whoever the douche is who specified it in HTML decreed that all whitespace collapses together, thus you type two spaces, it displays as one, and whether it's stored as one or two is up to the gods. DeviantArt tries to help, replacing double spaces with two (non-breaking space) strings, which inflates the hell out of my file sizes and plays hob with the line breaking.
(ooh, and typing that escape string for nbsp and hitting preview shows it as unescaped text in the preview, but converts it in the edit box below the preview.)
Posted by: Mauser at May 05, 2012 07:58 PM (cZPoz)
12
I hate the double-space. Hideous.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at May 05, 2012 08:23 PM (5OBKC)
13
Typing class in high school was on selectrics, but I started earlier than that with an old cast-iron fully manual monster (Mom's from her college days.)
I'll break with tradition and say it was not the most useful class I took... Because I became an EE and had taken 3 years of vocational electronics in HS.
And I'm cursed to forever be a double-spacer. The concept has hung around in strange places... on the iPhone, space-space converts to period-space, so you don't have to switch to the "numbers and punctuation" screen when texting.
Posted by: Mikeski at May 05, 2012 09:48 PM (1bPWv)
14
I heard that the engineering term for when you take something apart, put it back together, there are parts left over and yet it still works is "adding lightness."
Posted by: Toren at May 06, 2012 04:15 PM (tcSL4)
15
In software development, we call it "refactoring".
-j
Posted by: J Greely at May 06, 2012 05:31 PM (2XtN5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 01, 2012
April 18, 2012
End of an Era
One of my favorite games in the old days was Super-hero League of Hoboken. For those not familiar with the US, Hoboken NJ is just across the Hudson river from Manhattan. This year's US F1 is going to be run there.
I've been hoping GOG would acquire that title, but it hasn't happened. It's a DOS game, and I bet it would run under DOSBOX. But my copy is long gone, and them's the breaks.
Hoboken's name is obviously funny, and as a town it's strictly bedroom. Most of the people who live there work somewhere else, particularly in Manhattan, to which they commute on the PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson) subway which runs under the river.
One of the PATH stations used to be under the World Trade Center. I'm not sure if it's still in operation.
Anyway, Hoboken is one of those places like Poughkeepsie which pretty much brings a snicker when mentioned, even if unjustly, just because the name is so strange.
And that's why it was used in this game, which is completely tongue-in-cheek. It's full of topical jokes which probably haven't aged well.
One of them is that at one point in the game the League goes to one particular place, and Dick Clark is running a concert, "...and he still looks young!"
Well, not any more. He died today, age 82. Bummer.
UPDATE: Another joke was that at one point the League finds a bunch of corpsicles. They revive two of them, and it turns out to be George Steinbrenner and Billy Martin. Steinbrenner hires and then fires Martin twice in the ensuing conversation as they exit.
The League also visits Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. Sadly, it isn't there anymore. It was torn down last year.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
01:43 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.
1
A wonderful game, played two decades ago or more. I never played it as much as, say,
SimCity I or
Civ I or
Pirates!, but fun nevertheless.
I don't have the love for "The House That Ruth Built" that you do, but reportedly it was pretty much an unsafe dump that hadn't been authentic since the 1974 renovation when it closed.
And I'm not trying to nitpick, but the US GP will be in Austin, TX this year; the
Grand Prix of Weehawken starts next year.
Posted by: Wonderduck at April 18, 2012 03:43 PM (PVVuW)
2
I never saw Yankee Stadium. Never been to the Bronx at all. I've only visited New York City about three times, not counting changing planes there. But the joke from SHLoH stays with me:
The sign says, "This is the house that Ruth built", whoever she was.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at April 18, 2012 03:49 PM (+rSRq)
3
Super Hero League of Hoboken sounds a lot like
The Tick. Man, I miss that cartoon. It was in the same class as
Bullwinkle to me...
Posted by: Tex Lovera at April 20, 2012 03:10 PM (DvLEA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2012
Big storm coming
If you live in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, or Iowa, please spend all of tomorrow in your storm cellar.
This isn't a joke. NOAA thinks there's going to be a boat-load of tornadoes tomorrow.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
09:03 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think you're overstating it, although that page is updated a few times a day so maybe you saw something other than what I saw last night, or just a few minutes ago. If they were expecting the roof to fall in, we'd see a lot stronger language out of NOAA. Also, if you click on "Probablistic" the map shows no higher than a 45% chance of an outbreak in Wisconson at present.
Posted by: ubu at April 14, 2012 11:37 AM (GfCSm)
2
There have been four funnels in Kansas already.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at April 14, 2012 11:51 AM (+rSRq)
3
So I see. Wonderful sense of timing I have there... but I still feel the warning is understated. Maybe it's just their style is a lot more laid-back than the hurricane center's has become. "This storm is a killer...{citizens that stay} face certain death," etc., etc.
I really don't get this; it's hyping the straight-line winds, but it ranks thunderstorm risk as "moderate" or "slight" and Kansas is barely within the green zone. Any mention of tornadoes is listed as "slight." Heck,
I'm within the green zone, for that matter.
If this is truly a stylistic difference between the Hurricane Center and the Storm Prediction Center, NOAA needs to work on getting them balanced.
Posted by: ubu at April 14, 2012 12:00 PM (GfCSm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2012
Tattoo fad -- foreign writing
You all are familiar, I assume, with the American fad to get tattoos in Chinese, usually resulting in gibberish or something really embarassing.
Seems that the new fad in China is to get tattoos in English.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
06:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
April 06, 2012
Another flying car
Only this one's an autogyro.
And there's no possible way it would be street legal in the US.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste in Weird World at
06:36 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Before another natural disaster strikes, I hasten to mention that I'd like an Icon A5 for Christmas (http://www.iconaircraft.com/). It's an airplane that one can tow, which basically has all the advantages of Terrafuga, but keeps the performance of a normal airplane - speed, range, and payload - because it does not carry a redundant engine and other attributes of a car. Unfortunately, A5 was a vapor for many years, as the company is struggling to create the impossible: an airplane that can be flown by any boater safely. Last I heard from them, they just completed and certified a spin-resistant design (on top of an unstallable wing).
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at April 06, 2012 06:55 PM (5OBKC)
2
It has 3 wheels, this opens a LOT of loopholes in US regulatory assininity.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at April 06, 2012 07:03 PM (EJaOX)
3
Brickmuppet, you're right. That makes it a motorcycle, doesn't it? So it doesn't need 10-mph crash bumpers or stuff like that.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at April 06, 2012 07:44 PM (+rSRq)
4
That's nice work for a prototype - even the pusher prop folds itself up to stow away neatly.
I love regulations like that - three wheels makes it a motorcycle.... With a pusher prop and rotor blades.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 06, 2012 08:22 PM (PiXy!)
5
I like that one much more than the Terrafugia. Of course, aside from the fact that I couldn't afford either one, my normal commute goes nowhere near a place where you could take-off or land either one.
Posted by: David at April 06, 2012 09:45 PM (Kn54v)
6
I am not a big fan of autogyros for the reason that they combine the worst control response and stability characteristics of airplanes and helicopters. Only experienced rotorcraft pilots can fly them, and even then the last time an autogyro was on the market ("AT-2"), its crash record was unimaginably bad: something like 1 in 5 flights ended in a mishap. Most were related to a roll-over. I cannot imagine PAL-V being flown routinely by someone who's not a professional stunt pilot.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at April 07, 2012 07:17 AM (5OBKC)
7
Depends on the AutoGyro design. A lot of the kit-built sort don't have a
horizontal stabilizer, and have poor thrust/Drag lines, making them
very vulnerable to "Power Push Over", where in a climb, the pilot tries
to level out before reducing power. The sudden reduction in drag from
the rotor disk vs the high thrust line from the motor (mounted too high
for ground clearance) and the low drag line from the fuselage/Pilot
(mounted too low because long spindly landing gear is harder to design),
results in the machine toppling over. A properly designed autogyro
will have the thrust and drag much more aligned, and a horizontal
stabilizer will prevent toppling over.
Remember when they were first invented, the idea was to make a
crash/stall-proof airplane. There were some advantages to the original
tractor designs.
(How on earth did I end up logged out?)
Posted by: Mauser at April 07, 2012 10:27 AM (cZPoz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
61kb generated in 0.1309 seconds; 57 queries returned 159 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.