Saturday, October 29, 2005
[random][geek] Republic Dogs
Aristotle: What kind of argument is that? Your theory of the forms rests on an arbitrary and vicious act of violence. Socrates: [Draws his gun.] Aristotle, you're Plato's student, I respect you, but I will put fucking bullets through your heart if you don't take back what you said about me being violent now! Aristotle: [Also drawing gun] You shoot, you'll be dining with Lord Hades tonight. I repeat. You kill me, your ass is eating pomegranite fucking casserole for the rest of eternity. Alcibiades: Shit, man, you're acting like a bunch of fuckin' Spartans. Am I the only philosopher around here? Socrates and Aristotle: [To Alcibiades] Shut up! Alcibiades: Guys, guys, calm down. Look, I've got it. Let's have a symposium -- we can all drink wine and make speeches in praise of love. Aristotle: What are you, some kind of pansy? Socrates: Shoot that dipshit. [Socrates and Aristotle turn in unison and shoot Alcibiades, then turn back and again aim at each other.]Indeed...
Thursday, October 27, 2005
[random][geek] I is smart
You Passed 8th Grade Math |
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
[politics] 2000 2001
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
[politics] This is standing up?
2 Comments:
- Don Durito said...
-
Hi. Just came across your blog via BooMan Tribune. I share your sentiments regarding the Dem party. Every once in a while I post up similar sorts of rants on mine.
- protected static said...
-
Thanks for stopping by - checking out your profile & blog, it seems we probably have more in common than just politics...
Monday, October 24, 2005
[geek] 30-second science blogging - Wired's coverage of NASA's space elevator contest
With the flick of a switch, a searchlight beam illuminated a photovoltaic array, and a prototype space elevator called Snow Star One lifted off the ground. As the humble assemblage of solar cells, metal braces and off-the-shelf rollers rose slowly from the launch pad and up a long blue tether, a small crowd of spectators let out a boisterous cheer. The contraption, designed by University of British Columbia undergrads Steve Jones and Damir Hot, didn't get very far -- it managed to wriggle its way just 15 feet up the 200-foot-long tether before stalling out. But as the first competitor in the inaugural Space Elevator Games, even that modest performance was enough to cause a quite stir in the still-embryonic space elevator community. [...] Spaceward [(the non-profit foundation overseeing the competition)] board member Michael Laine, president of a Bremerton, Washington-based company called LiftPort that is seeking to commercialize space-elevator technology, noted that next year's games will up the ante considerably. While the already daunting thresholds will be set even higher, there will also be more money to entice competitors -- $100,000 for first prize, $40,000 for second and $10,000 for third. "I think that next year is going to be big," Laine said. "It's going to be harder, but I think there's going to be lots of people that rise to the challenge. We're at the beginning of something really great."When I mentally compare these steps with what I can only imagine would be involved in actually building an elevator, I can't help but think of Langley's Aerodromes compared to an F-22 Raptor or the JSF. I wonder what Langley would say about the JSF? Despite being an 'early adopter' of powered, heavier-than-air flight, would he have laughed at the idea of carbon composites, ceramic laminates, titanium components, and a top speed of Mach 1.8?
[politics] "Are you going to stand up?"
Rosa Parks: 1913-2005
"Are you going to stand up?" So spoke a bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, 1955; in the seat, a woman determined to stay where she was entitled. That we should all have the courage of our convictions to stand as Rosa Parks stood up against Jim Crow. To the end, she was an example for us all. I'm not religious, but certainly a moment of silence is in order for Mrs. Parks. The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis (the former Lorraine Motel, where Dr. King was killed) is here; the Rosa & Raymond Parks Institute is here. [edited 25-Oct-05 9:15 AM PDT to add the following paragraph] I wanted to add a link to this, a diary on MyLeftWing.com that reminds us that Rosa Parks' resistance was not an accident: she was a long-time member of the NAACP prior to 1955, and had previously refused to stand up on buses during the 1940s. None of this happened overnight, and none of this was accidental, both points that are likely to be glossed over (if not ignored entirely) in the self-serving hagiographies that will come out over the next few days and weeks. [thanks to billmon for the reminder, and to The Smoking Gun for the photo][random] 1-year!
[geek][humor] Behold! The power of XML!
[random] Now I need a weekend to recover from my weekend
Sunday, October 23, 2005
[geek][programming] From the "People should know better by now department"
Friday, October 21, 2005
[geek] 30-second science blogging - an "X-Prize"-lite for the space elevator concept
3 Comments:
- Brian Dunbar said...
-
You can hardly blame NASA for being conservative. Engineers tend to be, and the 'strap a rocket to your back' approach has the virtue that, at the last, it works.
We might wish they'd spend a bit more time/attention on alterative means to launch, however. - protected static said...
-
I can't also help but wonder if the long-time military affiliation with NASA has hurt (probably not the right word... had an impact?) as well. Both the military and engineering produce pretty cautious mindsets, with good reason.
Then there's the Right Stuff era test-pilot/cowboy mentality - given the way institutions pass down traditions and mindsets, it's probably only been within the last 20 years or so that that culture has worked itself out of NASA. When did NASA drop the ex-military-only requirement for astronauts? That would have marked a tremendous turning point as well...
And yes, it does work. Spectacularly. And when it works, it also makes for great theatre (and I don't mean that in a negative way) - there're some photos of Canaveral night launches that still take my breath away. - Brian Dunbar said...
-
Both the military and engineering produce pretty cautious mindsets, with good reason
Allowing that I was 'only' a junior enlisted Marine (I spent most of my time in service as an E3 and I'm perversly proud of that) it's not so much that the military has a cautious mindset as a conservative one. You go with what works. This is not the same as being cautious.
Cautious leaders in the military can have their place, but you have to roll the dice at times - they'd revoke your engineering degree if you tried that with a bridge.
McClellen for example could have won the Civil War in 1862 had he moved with alacrity in front of Richmond.
He did not - given his character he could not - and the defect was as much one of character as that the Lee simply out generalled the poor man.
When did NASA drop the ex-military-only requirement for astronauts? That would have marked a tremendous turning point as well...
A very long time ago. Armstrong was a civilian test pilot as were others in Apollo. But they were associated with the military - given the requirement for test pilot experience it couldn't be otherwise.
You're looking for the Shuttle era I suspect.
And yes, it does work. Spectacularly. And when it works, it also makes for great theatre
Amen. Space flight is the grace note to our culture - our gift to the future. A rocket boosting for the heavens is the clearest best expression of what we're capable of.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
[politics] It's a holiday in Cambodia Syria
The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict -- fruitlessly in the event -- to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious. The end result was not changed in Vietnam; Cambodia itself was plunged into dangerous chaos, which climaxed in the killing fields, where an estimated 1 million Cambodians died as a result of internal conflict. On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that the Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them have chosen to share that important information with the American people. Presumably, the Bush administration's intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at more than 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion. The Bush administration would claim that it is expanding the war in Iraq into Syria to try to bring it to an end, the kind of screwy non-logic that kept us in Vietnam for a decade and cost 58,193 American lives in the end.Santayana... history... lessons... 'doomed to repeat'... Anyone? Anyone? It just seems fitting to end this with lyrics from another song by the DK's - their version of I Fought the Law:
The law don't mean shit if you've got the right friends That's how the country's run Twinkies are the best friend I've ever had I fought the law And I won[thanks to dKos readers roxtar and jfern for bringing this to everyone's attention] (back to top)
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
[random] Writer's cramp
[geek][gadget] Sweet! Slick new Sony VAIO laptop
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
[random] Halloween fun
[geek] 30-second science blogging - general geeky roundup
Thursday, October 13, 2005
[geek][gadget] Update: PEZ MP3 player goes live!
2 Comments:
- said...
-
Yet again you insist on exalting the needless complication of something that is simple and elegant! Philistine!
- protected static said...
-
And boring... Don't forget boring ;-)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
[politics] 100 Iraqi battalions, trained and ready to go!
[random] Aaaahhhh!!! My eyes!!!
Monday, October 10, 2005
[politics] That's gonna leave a mark
Navy SEAL Mitchell Hall, who won a Bronze Star in 2001 in Afghanistan, hopes to use the upcoming Ironman Triathlon in Hawaii to spread the word about the need for more recruits. The competition will make the 31-year-old chief petty officer a spokesman for the community of self-described quiet professionals and put him in front of the cameras he spent years avoiding. The change in recruiting methods comes amid the Pentagon’s increasing reliance on special operations and the call for a 15 percent increase in SEALs over the next several years. The SEALs have a legendary reputation as an elite, highly skilled fighting force, but it is hard to find candidates with the necessary physical conditioning.Fifteen percent. This is a small force we're talking about, so a 15% increase is kinda huge. Admittedly, this works out well for the Navy in other ways, too: in order to get those extra SEALs, they're going to have to recruit a lot more sailors because so many SEAL candidates wash out. And guess what? There are no backsies for recruits who fail SEAL training: you're still in the Navy, if you make the cut or not.
Only 25 percent pass entrance exam Every SEAL must finish one of the world’s toughest entrance exams, a six-month training program that typically weeds out three of every four candidates. The Navy also is creating a SEAL rating — a formal job description — that should allow candidates to more quickly begin formal SEAL training. Previously, SEALs — the name stands for Sea, Air, Land — had to attend school to learn traditional jobs held by Navy sailors. Driving the changes is the need to add 400 men by fiscal 2008, bringing the total number of SEALs from 2,600 to about 3,000. Special operations units in the Army and Air Force also are planning to increase their ranks, and U.S. Special Operations Command is offering bonuses of up to $150,000 to keep the most experienced operators from bolting to the more lucrative private sector.See, though - here's the problem. In Vietnam, we saw Special Ops troops as the answers to all of our problems: move fast and strike hard, "Death From Above", "One Shot, One Kill", and all that, all with plausible denibility. Then guess what? We screwed the pooch. Not only did we use our Special Ops troops (and I'll include CIA paramilitary units here) illegally, we created too many of them. We did what? Yup, we created too many of them. We did what any other government does when it runs out of currency - we made more. Only instead of banknotes, our coin of the real was shadow warriors. And, like every money-printing spree in history, we debased the currency. We lowered standards for admittance, we turned a blind eye to rogues and incompetents and cowboys, because we needed more and more and more and more. And because every now and then we achieved some remarkable successess with these units where our regular troops were falling short, we made even more on top of that. We made more but wound up with less - much less - and it took decades to pay off that bill. Our special forces didn't fully recover from the effects of this binge until the late 1980s. Overall, I would not take this article as a positive sign.
[culcha] MirrorMask
Sunday, October 09, 2005
[politics] Yeah, that'd've gone over real well...
NEW YORK (AFP) - The United States recently debated launching military strikes inside Syria against camps used by insurgents operating in neighboring Iraq, a US magazine reported. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice successfully opposed the idea at a meeting of senior American officials held on October 1 [emphasis added], Newsweek reported, citing unnamed US government sources.Well, at least Rice appears to have half a gram of sense. Can you imagine what would have erupted if we had launched those strikes? Personally, when I saw the headlines I was expecting some kind of Tonkin-on-the-Euphrates action, and I'm glad calmer heads prevailed. I have no love for Syria's regieme, but still... That would not have been a sign that we were exactly in control of the situation in Iraq, despite the noises to the contrary coming from the talking heads, offical and syncophantic alike. More-or-less current information about Syria may be found here.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
[politics] So...
Friday, October 07, 2005
[culcha] "in the machinery of night"
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night, who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz, who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war -- Ginsberg, Howl (1955)Parts of it feel 50 years old... parts of it feel timeless. Thanks for the reminder, billmon (among others).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home