Oct 302023
 

A barnacle that attaches itself to female crabs and convinces said crab that it is her eggs so that the crab will take care of it, and help it distribute its own eggs. But it sometimes attaches itself to male crabs.In that case, it releases hormones that convince the male crab that it is female, sometimes to the point that the gonads actually flip sex.

Well, that’s horrifying.

But it’s also… well, huh. Hormones being fed into an organism without the organisms knowledge or consent, causing it confusion about its gender. one wonders if there might be some sort of analogies that can be drawn. Such as to chemicals in the water and food supply… birth control pills flushed down the toilet, entering the sewage treatment systems, *not* getting processed out and then dumped into the water supply. “Forever chemicals” added to plastic drinking bottles that mimic gendered human sex hormones, and which are now detectable in *rain.*

 

 Posted by at 11:31 pm
Oct 292023
 

Old-school antisemitism: not just for western leftists.

 

For the brain dead who think “this is an over-there problem, nothing to do with us,” the chumps who set off the Boston Marathon bombs back in 2013 were from, in part, Dagestan, and were of the same mindset as this jet-swarming mob.

 

 Posted by at 2:27 pm
Oct 242023
 

I guess this is kinda cool, a dress – at least the front side of one – composed of “scales” that can change from mirror-chrome to dull metallic on command. But even though it’s made of individual scales, it does not appear to be terribly flexible, and seems likely to be uncomfortable.

Still, if it could do more than just “shiny/matte,” but actually change colors, it seems like it might have a future. Specifically… plate *actual* steel scales with this material and make practical lamellar armor that can change color. That seems like it might be an interesting fashion for the future as society continues to get “enriched.” Shiny, perhaps even golden, armor when you’re out and about, and at the flick of a switch it turns matte black when the time comes to throw down.

Sure, here it seems to be pitched at the female market. But I suggest culturally appropriating the tech and making it the Must Have Man Product of the 2030’s.

 

 Posted by at 11:51 pm
Oct 192023
 

There are several ways to accomplish the goal of extracting maximum performance from a solid rocket motor via the nozzle. The most common way – a convergent-divergent nozzle – is the standard for a reason: it’s the simplest, lightest most reliable way to do it. But there are alternatives that provide specific advantages. One of them is the “forced deflection nozzle.” Instead of a single circular throat, the nozzle has several; instead of directing the exhaust gas due aft, it forces it “sideways” to smack into the broader, shallower nozzle.

The advantages here:

1: The nozzle is sort of a hemispherical bowl, rather than a long, slim cone or paraboloid.

2: It provides some altitude compensation, similar to an aerospike.

There are also disadvantages, not least of which is that the throat is now under substantially greater thermal and dynamic forces. Few materials known to Man will be able to long withstand the high heat load and erosive forces. But in 1986, Aerojet proposed to develop such a nozzle for a singular purpose: to integrate into future ICBMs. The reasoning was… the bowl-like nozzle fits the bowl-like forward dome of the lower stage. Instead of a long interstage structure being required, the stages fit together neatly. in principle this would allow ballistic missiles to be more compact, shorter by useful distances. This is not very important for space launchers, but for missiles that need to fit into silos, submarines, bomb bays or Shuttle cargo bays, extra space means extra capacity.

 

 

Diagram showing a conventional 3-stage solid rocket ICBM against three concepts making use of the forced deflection nozzle. You could have a much shorter vehicle with equivalent weight and payload, or same-length boosters with 28.4% greater range for the same payload, or 33% greater payload for the same range.

 Posted by at 9:02 pm
Oct 172023
 

All evidence points to the forthcoming “Snow White” live action movie from Disney being something of a train wreck. It is a remake of the 19430’s animated classic, but it’s getting rid of pretty much everything… Snow White was originally prettier than the Evil Queen, now she’s objectively “meh;” Snow White was originally a love story, now Prince Charming is wholly absent and the Snow White character seems to be devoid of any motive but personal ambition for power; Snow White had seven dwarves, now a Bennetton Ad of “magical creatures;” and originally the actress for Snow White wasn’t an insufferable doofus, now it’s Rachel Zegler. *Lots* of people have a serious problem with almost every decision Disney has made here.

But here’s the thing: “Snow White” is public domain. Anyone can make a Snow White movie.

So the conservative “Daily Wire” new outlet is doing just that. Is it going to be any good? I dunno. Honestly I’m dubious… “really high quality movies” is not something I normally associate with “politically driven media company.” And it is in a way something of a “mockbuster,” a movie made specifically to ride the coat tails of a much more expensive studio production. But it is the right way to counter Disney’s crap: do it yourself. Make an effort to show how it *should* be done.

 

The “Bent Key” production company seems to be going all-out on content creation:

I have hopes that this will work out. Not because I have any particular interest in Bent Key (first I heard of ’em was when I saw the Snow White trailer), but because if they succeed, *maybe* there’s a very slim chance of some stories getting told correctly. If they can get the rights, imagine a *proper* telling of, say, “Have Spacesuit Will Travel” or “Red Planet” or “Rocketship Galileo,” or – and this would be spectacular – “Tom Swift Jr.” I have no idea if they *want* to tell these classic SF yarns, but I do know that I don’t want legacy Hollywood to tackle them. Because they *would* (and have) screw them up to the point of mutilating them.

 Posted by at 1:36 am
Oct 122023
 

NOTE: The post below was originally from 2008. But for some reason, it seems like it might be worth a second look.


The basic issue comes down to this… the Israelies had the poor manners to occupy Muslim territory. Granted, it was Christian territory before the Muslims conquered it, and Roman Pagan territory before the Chistians conquered it, and Jewish territory before the Romans conquered it… but apparently Muslims are real twitchy about Muslim territory being made “not Muslim territory anymore.” The consequence of this is that the Israelies are forever going to be in a state of siege. It doesn’t help that both sides see that little scrap of land as their Rightful Gift From God. When people are convinced that their God wants them to be someplace, they’ll often enough make some effort to actually be there.

So, what to do? I have a suggestion. It would work. It only has one serious flaw.

It boils down to this: give up on the scrap of land currently known as “Israel.” Pull the Israeli people out, put them somewhere else. However, the entirety of land area on Earth, except for Antarctica, is owned by somebody. So, whereever New Israel might be, is currently already somebody else’s. At first blush, that means the problem has not been solved… same issue as with Israel/Palestine. But here’s the thing: most people on Earth are sane enough that they can be bought. This was not the case in the Middle East…. they’s crazy. But there are lots of scraps of land that can be had, if you just know how to bargain. And I have just the scrap of land: northern Mexico. Specifically, a strip along the US/Mexico border, 50 miles wide, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific.

A few questions:

1) How much would this cost? I have no friggen’ clue. Probably a trillion dollars or more.

2) Who would pay for this? I’d suggest a split between the US and Israel, both governmental and private donors. I’d suggest that the bulk of it come from the US, and be paid to Mexico over a period of, say, thirty years. Israel would be on the hook to repay the US over the following thirty years or so.

3) Why would the Israelies want this? They’d have their own spot of land for Nuevo Israel, with an ally on one side, and on the other… someone who at the very least doesn’t really give a rats ass.

4) Why would the US want this? Several reasons. For starters, we could finally tell the Middle East to go piss up a rope. The ME’s troubles are hardly going to go away if the Israelies bug out; the local Arab governments are simply going to have to scramble to find some other bullshit strawgoblin to rattle their populace with. Second, having Israel on the southern border would mean nothing but goodness for the US. Illegal immigration would slow to a crawl; the drug trade would be similarly stymied. Cross-border crime from Mexican drug gangs would be a thing of the past. Any drug gangs on the Mexico/Nuevo Israel border who to tried to cause a ruckus would find out that the IDF is not as hand-tied as the US border patrol. The costs involved in this land purchase would, in the long run, be a pittance compared to the savings to the American penal and health care systems, never mind the economy in general.

5) Why would the Mexican government want this? Buckets of money.

6) Why would the Mexican people want this? Many probably wouldn’t… but again, there’s that “buckets of money” thing. The deal could ladle out large sums to Mexican families currently living in the strip to move south. Mexicans who don’t want to leave could be incorporated into Nuevo Israel, much as many Arabs were integrated into Israel. Those who stay would find that their surroundings would get vastly better. Instead of corrupt Mexican cops and government, there’d be the NIDF forces. Criminals would very quickly find themselves deported to Old Mexico.

OK, here’s the big, HUGE stumbling block: God. Getting God’s Chosen People to clear off of God’s Chosen Real Estate could be trouble. Still, the majority of the Israelies seem like reasonably reasonable folk… just as reasonable religious folk see Genesis not as literal fact but as allegorical, so could the idea of “Israel is wherever the Israelies are” be spun.

Also, there are a whole lot of Christian and Jewish “holy sites” in the current land of Israel. Well… presumably they’ll still be there, even after the Palestinians sweep in and loot whatever the Israelies leave behind. And once the Israelies are gone, the Arab world (along with the rest of the world) will stop giving a damn about Palestine; after the famine and general pestilence passes through and burns out the whackadoodle element, the tourism trade will be all that’s left, and should do brisk business with Nuevo Israelies visiting the ancient homeland once or twice in their lives. Practically, this should be doable… after all, all Muslims with the means of doing so are supposed to visit Mecca at least once in their lives, but they seem to be fine with going back home to Indonesia or Canada or wherever once the visit’s over.

And hey… if as the Israelies are packing up and leaving they dig up the Temple Mount and ship it across the sea… who’d notice?

Below is a map showing the rough geometry of Nuevo Israel as a 50-mile-wide strip. There’d be some good seashore for ports, both east and west. Off in the Pacific is the current state of Israel for scale. Clearly, Nuevo Israel would be vastly larger. Lots of room to grow… and seeing what the Israelies did with the Negev desert, it would not be shocking if, a century or three down the line, the US/Mexico border is easily seen from the Moon as a verdant belt fifty miles wide.

neuvoisrael2a.jpg

 Posted by at 10:37 pm
Oct 122023
 

Humanity, that is. In terms of our ability to scare the crap out of African wildlife.

Fear of the human “super predator” pervades the South African savanna

In short: cameras and speakers were set up near watering holes and a wide range of sounds, including lions and other predators, were played. Animals got the hell out of Dodge when the heard humans at a much greater rate than any other sound.

As a whole (n = 4,238 independent trials), wildlife were twice as likely to run (p < 0.001) and abandoned waterholes in 40% faster time (p < 0.001) in response to humans than to lions (or hunting sounds). Fully 95% of species ran more from humans than lions (significantly in giraffes, leopards, hyenas, zebras, kudu, warthog, and impala) or abandoned waterholes faster (significantly in rhinoceroses and elephants). Our results greatly strengthen the growing experimental evidence that wildlife worldwide fear the human “super predator” far more than other predators

Yay, I guess?

The “sounds of humans” turn out to be simple recorded conversations, male and female, in several languages. Not shouting, not angry, just “hey, how ya doin'” level chitchat. Rhinos and elephant just “nope” on out of there; other animals freak and dash. In contrast, lion sounds caused elephants to *attack* the speakers.

Yeah, I’m not sure I feel all that great about being the most terrifying thing on the planet.

 Posted by at 12:49 pm
Oct 112023
 

The idea of a repeating firearm (a gun that does not need to be manually loaded after each shot) goes back to at least the 1500’s. But more-or-less practical “repeaters” were produced in time for the American Revolutionary War. Such weapons were proposed to Congress, but even though they worked they were very expensive. As well as complex, heavy and likely unreliable in field conditions. but the important thing to note is that they existed, well in advance of the adoption of the Constitution. So anyone who suggests that the Second Amendment only supports ownership of single shot muzzle-loading muskets because that was all that was available… well, they’re (charitably) wrong, or (not unlikely) outright lying.

 Posted by at 2:00 pm