Jump to content

Weird, random, interesting - now with 100% less diacriticals


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I was expecting a Daily Fail link to be honest.

Don't see any problem with Subway 'bread' not being bread yet vegie snags or patties still being OK to be called that. Bread is a product where the majority of added sugar gets eaten by yeast (or there is no yeast or sugar). If you have lots of excess sugar then it's a cake. Vegie burgers or sausages are in my experience always labelled as being vegetarian because it's a selling point that they are, so there's no confusion.

OTOH, I'm outraged about bananas having to have a certain curvature and cucumbers not being allowed to have any curvature, bureaucracy gone mad I tell you!

I honestly do.

If vegetarians want to eat cow patties or veggiedongs, they're free to, just don't call it hamburgers or sausages when they don't contain meat, just as subway "bread" is cake.

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burger and Sausage aren't a type of food though. It's a packaging or presentation of food. Bread is supposed to be bread, not cake.

I don't think they call it "Ham' burger either, I imagine it is just Burger.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminded of

 

  • Like 3

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Burger and Sausage aren't a type of food though.

Well they're not hood ornaments, either... :p

(iirc the etymology of sausage is from the curing process using salt, so an argument could be made that it shouldn't be called a sausage if its not salt cured)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ElLlCUDX0AQhnog?format=jpg&name=medium

  • Like 3

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

chicken or egg?

intuitive we tend to think the professor reverses. look at the civil war and the medical advancements which came out of the conflict. you don't sudden decide to halt medical advancements in the hope o' preventing future wars or those who might die 'cause o' medical advancements. we ought to limit biomedical advancements until we attain world peace 'cause is possible such advancements will lead to bioweapons? idiotic suggestion.

basics o' icbm technology existed before the so-called space race and the military involvement in such

the only reason the US invested so heavily in peaceful applications o' space exploration is because o' the competition with the ussr. it were the military funding which accompanied kennedy's promise to beat the soviets to the moon which made the apollo missions possible. is not as if icbm tech and advancement woulda' stopped or been undermined by absence o' a space race, but all those peacetime applications resulting from nasa's and the soviet efforts to reach the moon woulda' been lost or retarded. 

will need to read further, but after an admitted all too brief and unfair look, daniel deudney appears to have complete reversed the typical/ordinary progression. 

oh, and while am knowing gd favors privatization o' space exploration, am disagreeing whole hearted. but for obama choices to defund nasa, we would likely already have returned to the moon and would be much further along in our goal o' reaching mars, and would be literal dozens and possible hundreds o' ordinary life altering technologies resulting from the need to overcome the scientific hurdles preventing us from safe returning to moon and then going to mars. so many wasted opportunities. any President who cuts nasa budget instant gains our derision and scorn. 

...

the threat o' possible and future terraforming technology used in wartime applications is so utter remote and divorced from current 2020 reality as to beggar the imagination. any sorta serious consideration o' terraforming planets w/i the solar system is skipping so many intermediate steps as to make the suggestion comic.. but since am talking comic...

moon hoaxers and those who wanna cut nasa budgets is on our list

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong thread, oops.

Edited by Malcador

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gromnir said:

chicken or egg?

intuitive we tend to think the professor reverses. look at the civil war and the medical advancements which came out of the conflict. you don't sudden decide to halt medical advancements in the hope o' preventing future wars or those who might die 'cause o' medical advancements. we ought to limit biomedical advancements until we attain world peace 'cause is possible such advancements will lead to bioweapons? idiotic suggestion.

basics o' icbm technology existed before the so-called space race and the military involvement in such

the only reason the US invested so heavily in peaceful applications o' space exploration is because o' the competition with the ussr. it were the military funding which accompanied kennedy's promise to beat the soviets to the moon which made the apollo missions possible. is not as if icbm tech and advancement woulda' stopped or been undermined by absence o' a space race, but all those peacetime applications resulting from nasa's and the soviet efforts to reach the moon woulda' been lost or retarded. 

will need to read further, but after an admitted all too brief and unfair look, daniel deudney appears to have complete reversed the typical/ordinary progression. 

oh, and while am knowing gd favors privatization o' space exploration, am disagreeing whole hearted. but for obama choices to defund nasa, we would likely already have returned to the moon and would be much further along in our goal o' reaching mars, and would be literal dozens and possible hundreds o' ordinary life altering technologies resulting from the need to overcome the scientific hurdles preventing us from safe returning to moon and then going to mars. so many wasted opportunities. any President who cuts nasa budget instant gains our derision and scorn. 

...

the threat o' possible and future terraforming technology used in wartime applications is so utter remote and divorced from current 2020 reality as to beggar the imagination. any sorta serious consideration o' terraforming planets w/i the solar system is skipping so many intermediate steps as to make the suggestion comic.. but since am talking comic...

moon hoaxers and those who wanna cut nasa budgets is on our list

HA! Good Fun!

Project Artemis is on schedule for manned lunar landings in 2024. Assuming funding isn't cut before then. Exploration for it's own sake is still Nasa's thing. Even if Obama did curtail it significantly and direct NASA to purely political ends. The Space Shuttle was in development even before project Mercury. The dream of a reusable space vehicle was 30 years in development when Columbia first launched in 1981. And it was not a reusable system. The orbiter itself was but it was over weight, overly complicated and contained five seperate systems that had to work together. I remember how impressed I was with it until after I got out of college and realized, from an engineering prespective, it was a hot mess.  SpaceX developed a repectably efficient nearly completely reusable heavy lift system in a quarter of the time. Private space exploration and NASA can easily co-exist. Ultimately their goals are different but compatible. 

Anyway, they thing about this article is there seems to be a fear among academics of a military no longer under civilian control. This might be a concern in some countries but it really isn't in the US.

Of course... there have been exceptions

O978v9WBy9zi_yXya0Nil3nkQ_ek8ikbdkH0cfNV 

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

 The Space Shuttle was in development even before project Mercury. The dream of a reusable space vehicle was 30 years in development when Columbia first launched in 1981.

 

why does this point not resonate more? not only did nasa do first, but they did forty years ago. 

previous image link is busted

e48b6d1304a8bd5e8007ef3c3313753b.jpg

am thinking you are giving those nasa guys far less credit than they deserve. shoulders o' giants and all that.

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Project Artemis is on schedule for manned lunar landings in 2024. Assuming funding isn't cut before then. Exploration for it's own sake is still Nasa's thing. Even if Obama did curtail it significantly and direct NASA to purely political ends. The Space Shuttle was in development even before project Mercury. The dream of a reusable space vehicle was 30 years in development when Columbia first launched in 1981. And it was not a reusable system. The orbiter itself was but it was over weight, overly complicated and contained five seperate systems that had to work together. I remember how impressed I was with it until after I got out of college and realized, from an engineering prespective, it was a hot mess.  SpaceX developed a repectably efficient nearly completely reusable heavy lift system in a quarter of the time. Private space exploration and NASA can easily co-exist. Ultimately their goals are different but compatible. 

Anyway, they thing about this article is there seems to be a fear among academics of a military no longer under civilian control. This might be a concern in some countries but it really isn't in the US.

Of course... there have been exceptions

O978v9WBy9zi_yXya0Nil3nkQ_ek8ikbdkH0cfNV 

But it seems things might get delayed even if they don't cut NASA's budget. The ULA and SLS are being called "United Lobby Alliance" and "Senate Launch System". They are getting billions of funding and think (or at least claim) that reusable rockets are not worth it.

Meanwhile, SpaceX is doing a lot more with much less support from NASA. I don't know how much money they invested or received from private investors, but if Starship succeeds it will be a revolution in cost and capacity. It'll enable all kinds of things, from space mining to Mars colonization. And telescopes bigger than the James Webb.

Other companies have good ideas too, like Sierra Nevada's Dreamchaser and Dynetics' Alpaca moon lander, but not everyone seems to be moving in the right direction. And reusable rockets are definitely worth it.

China and Russia however seem to understand that and are making their own versions of the Falcon 9 and the US military is very interested in the Starship, so not everyone is incapable of understanding that.

I got some of the information above from Youtube, so feel free to correct me if it is wrong.

sign.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

why does this point not resonate more? not only did nasa do first, but they did forty years ago. 

am thinking you are giving those nasa guys far less credit than they deserve. shoulders o' giants and all that.

HA! Good Fun!

But after thirty years what they actually produced was not what they conceptulaized. The biggest hindrance to NASA is, and has always been, politcs. Congressmen demanding production of certain systems by certain companies in certain states. All of which are in a postion to shut the whole thing down if they don't get their way. Most of whom are far more conerned in the process and their role in it than the outcome. One of the big reasons the unmanned program was outsourced to JPL was to avoid the infighting. 

I read a great book a while back called Chasing New Horizons. It's about the Pluto flyby probe. There was a 10k' overview of the history of NASA. JPL, and the John Hopkins Applied Physics center. In short the NASA of today in no way resembles the organization that ran Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Voyager, Mariner, and the STS. More is the pity. There were people like George Low who worked very hard to prevent it from becoming just another bloated bureaucracy. But after Apollo it did. The fire went out.  

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The fire went out.  

the money disappeared. and jpl is federally funded... through a contract from nasa.

40 years.  40 years o' tech and experience advancements since 1981 and you are comparing as equivalencies? 

once nasa were sidelined and were no longer a national endeavour it still managed to produce advances in spite o' obstacles. spacex has a long way to go to come anywhere near replicating results o' nasa.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, InsaneCommander said:

They are getting billions of funding and think (or at least claim) that reusable rockets are not worth it.

There is a good precedent for that view though, in the Shuttle program. It was meant to be cheap because it was reusable, but ended up incredibly expensive, in part because it was reusable.

(I don't necessarily agree with that view personally, but I'd say it's certainly not just due to lobbying that that opinion is held)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the shuttle was weight. It's expensive to lift heavy things into orbit.  It's much more efficient to lift smaller payloads more frequently. And while the orbiter itself was reusable it's lift system wasn't. The orbiter could not carry more than it's own weight because of the limitations of the lift system. At a point in the design process it likley became clear to the engineering team the entire concept was flawed. But, this was a political directive. A space plane was asked for and a space they shall have.

Another thig that went wrong with NASA starting in the late 80's and continuing was the people who were put in charge if it. The current administrator placed by the Orange Menace has no qualifications for the job. He is a purely political appointee. And he's not the first. 

Edited by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 6:40 AM, Gfted1 said:

Isnt it called a "hamburger" because it originated in Hamburg Germany?

Not quite, but close. It's actually an American thing (sold at fairs in the late 1800's and early 1900's), but supposedly invented by people from Hamburg. No hard evidence seems to exist on it's origin, only competing tales. See also Frankfurter, Wiener (German for Vienna), Sandwich (made popular centuries ago by the Earl of Sandwich) ... (funny trivia, a US court ruling decided that tacos and burritos are not a sandwich)

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

There is a good precedent for that view though, in the Shuttle program. It was meant to be cheap because it was reusable, but ended up incredibly expensive, in part because it was reusable.

(I don't necessarily agree with that view personally, but I'd say it's certainly not just due to lobbying that that opinion is held)

Also, in their defense, some of the technologies they are using are more reliable and have been tested in the past. It's good to have that option, but I imagine it is unlikely that it will turn out to be the best one.

sign.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

The problem with the shuttle was weight.

Yeah, fundamentally you cannot ever get around weight as the primary factor. But reusability meant it was very complicated and had to be overengineered- partly why it was so heavy of course- and especially once it started having problems the economies of the reusability equation reversed due to the amount of maintenance and safety checks required. If you're at the stage of almost having to completely disassemble a complicated vehicle for safety checks you're likely to be better off using a simpler single use vehicle instead. Ultimately, If you sat down in 2010 to decide on a Shuttle replacement that took its mistakes into account you'd inevitably end up with something less complicated, more reliable and lighter rather than doubling down on a space plane- and you tend to get those things but making stuff single use.

The counterpoint being the Shuttle was late 70s/ early 80s tech and there was 30 (40 now) years of advances since then-  and it certainly is one of the great ironies that it was failures with the boosters rather than the reusable shuttle itself which caused the fatal problems. So yeah, arguments for/ against both approaches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really care who's at fault. I'm just happy the space industry finally picks up the pace again, after so many years of barely things happening. We are in a time now where you can read weekly space news and there's something new every time. It's super exciting, and I can't wait for the first Starship testflight soon™.

  • Like 3

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the random category... there's a special atmosphere when Pacific nations play rugby against each other

 

  • Like 1

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...