Not an “omnicron” in the bunch. Of course, the compiler didn’t include any bits from fake Trek like STD, so…
Not an “omnicron” in the bunch. Of course, the compiler didn’t include any bits from fake Trek like STD, so…
Pew.
So a guy bolted three miniature turbojets to the back of his Tesla. Sure, why not. But he then took it out onto a busy freeway and fired them up amongst the other traffic, shooting a few feet of flames in the process. Umm…?
That said, he seemed to get surprising performance from those three bitty engines. I don’t much care for the structure he built, though… especially the third engine, there’s a *lot* of wobble. It’s nowhere near as rugged as I’d’ve like to have seen.
YouTube decided that I needed to see the video below. It’s from a channel I’d not previously heard of, one that seems to be a pro-Lutheran satirical religious channel. Most of the time, that’s a description I’d generally pass on… but hey, the Babylon Bee pushes a religious agenda that I generally don’t agree with or have much use for, and they’re funny as hell and generally politically insightful. So i took a look. It’s not hilarious, but it makes a valid point: if you are going to try to batter someone for their political views based on what you think their religious views are, maybe you aughtta have some understanding of them. And there is a case to be made that if you think their religion is bunk, using their religion to batter them for their politics does at least to an extent not make much sense. Because if Jeebus is fictional, his opinions on this that or the other are kinda pointless.
Of course there is also the possible valid counter-argument of “you’re being hypocritical.” If your religion clearly and distinctly says Pro-X, and your politics says Anti-X, then the two are in conflict. And if you use your pro-X religion to buttress your anti-X politics, then… well, that ain’t right.
Example: politicians who claim that their Christian faith causes them to be opposed to the personal ownership of defensive weapons.
Ahem:
King James Bible
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Or in meme form:
One would hope that someone who tried to foment violence against people whose politics he doesn’t like would get to spend a good long while looking at gray walls and gray bars, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough:
Heh.
And let us not forget the people who enabled and supported him in his criminal activities:
Like many nerds, I loved the original anime. Nothing I saw in the leadup to the debut of the remake on Netflix inspired me to re-subscribe to the “Cuties” streamer, and once it started airing and bits of it made it to YouTube and such, my lack of interest intensified. Now that it has been cancelled less than three weeks after debuting, my overall response is… “meh.”
Netflix screwed this up. But I gotta hand it to them: unlike the monsters who screwed up Star Trek with Discovery and Picard, Netflix at least had the *decency* to terminate this cultural abortion.
If you are going to remake, reboot or sequelize a beloved property, at least *consider* the possibility of not making a mess of it. Just a thought.
I do wonder how well that would work in the real world. In parts of California, stealing less than $950 is a misdemeanor, more than $950 is a felony. The practical upshot is that local prosecutors don’t bother with going after the misdemeanor thefts, because that would require doing their jobs and that would get them accused of -ism by brainless activists. Slapping a felony-level price tag on a candy bar seems like a clever solution, but I suspect that the prosecutors would be just as diligent in letting the newly minted felons go.
The question was raised: “what is that thing?” It looks surprisingly like a Hummer, though it’s clearly not. Trolling through google Image Search, the closest I could find was the “Paymover T300 Push Tractor,” though that too is not quite right. Tow tractors from the early 1960’s are somewhat beyond my field of expertise, but an inability to figure this out after a while of searching bugs me.
The vehicle in question:
Modern photo of the Paymover T300 Push Tractor:
It’s clearly not the same vehicle, though it seems to share some design aspects. Anybody able to shed some light?
UPDATE: I found another photo that seems to show a part of the tug:
Kid shoots up a school: national news, political fodder for weeks.
Illegal immigrant serial killer kills 18 *or* *more* people: flies under the radar.
He was recently tried for 18 murders, and it was declared a mistrial because one of the jurors refused to convict.
Here are some of the women he killed:
And here he is:
Gotta wonder why this story isn’t national-newsworthy.
Hmmm. Why does “Waukesha” suddenly come to mind?
As this document is being compiled in 2019, NASA is once again planning a return to the Moon, and new lunar lander designs are being generated. Compared to Apollo, crews are projected to be larger (at least four per mission) and stay times longer (beginning at 6.5 days). However, it is expected that the landers will look much like the designs in this document because, as stated in the introduction, lunar lander design is a response to the simple physics that governs the tasks they are asked to perform. Design is also a living thing. New crewed lander designs will continue to emerge up until the point that humans return to the Moon, and even beyond. New players from different countries and commercial providers will create new designs based on new technologies and new requirements. Until some breakthrough technology or new physics principle is created, each lander will respond to the current physics of lunar landing. There may come a time, generations from now, when future engineers are paging through a digital copy of this catalog and reflecting on the early work of lunar lander designers. “Those Apollo guys were really smart, given that they started with nothing as a reference. The Lunar Module – now THAT was a great lunar lander design.”
It’s an interesting, illustrated catalog of many lunar lander concepts, but it’s hardly comprehensive; it largely starts with the Space Exploration Initiative, largely ignoring concepts from the 70’s and 80’s, and of course focusing almost entirely on NASA_designed concepts rather than Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell, etc.