imagedump.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Car analogy for Windows users by hairyfeet · 2010-01-29 03:32 · Score: 1 · on 2 Displays and 2 Workspaces With Linux and X?

The Chevy is a good truck, ain't no doubt about that, but for me it all comes down to after market parts which is why I'm a Ford man. Here the Ranger and F Series rule, which means after market parts are plentiful. How any man with a penis could be caught dead in an itsabatsabuchi 3 banger is beyond me.

And while the 351 in my F150 was nice we can't trust them oil companies or Goldman Sachs not to play "gouge the working man at the pump" so I've found the Vulcan to be the best of both worlds. In that light Ranger bod (here is a pic of my baby. Amazing what you can pick up for 3k in the south, huh?) she'll sling mud and climb hills with the best of them without breaking my wallet. And talking with fellow Ranger drivers those cast iron Vulcans can easily rack up 350k miles (I'm barely over 100k) before needing a rebuild.

I know you're joking but the classic 70s Chevy truck is certainly a sweet ride, easy to maintain and built like a tank. My GFs oldest boy is just about finished rebuilding a 67, really great ride. I'm assume from the UId you're in OZ? Really a shame that importing rides would be so expensive to get there, as here it is like classic ride heaven. My local car lot has no less than 4 classic El Caminos in mint state for less than 4k, and mint classic Mopar like the Dodge Demon and Challenger can be had all day for less than 3500. But here in AR it is all about the pickup truck. Even my oldest boy has been bitten by the pickup bug, and while I was never big on Nissans I have to admit that early 90s King Cab he is restoring is gonna be a really sharp street ride, with the high gloss black paint and silver chrome accents.

It's just like I was telling my GF, once a man sits behind the wheel of a well built truck he just ain't gonna wanna go back to no stupid little beep beep car. Here a man can work all day with plenty of legroom, take his mama shopping ( gotta respect your mama in the south son, its a law) and then load up a thousand pounds worth of musical gear and hit the club for a night of fun. Lets see anyone do that in a itsabatsabuchi beep beep car!

Pentagon hit looks somewhat dubious REDUX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-16 09:59 · Score: -1, Redundant · on US Releasing 9/11 Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Tape

IAAME/FD*

My brother pilots 747s. He says an amateur pilot would be capable of pulling the flight manoeuvres that took down the towers.

However, the manoeuvre that supposedly took out the Pentagon is another matter altogether. If you believe the gov, the pilot managed to pancake the jet onto the ground about 50-100 yards from the edge of the Pentagon and then "skip" the plane into the side of the pentagon, a bit like skipping a stone off a pond. He says an amateur would NEVER be able to pull off a manoeuvre like that.

-Too steep a flight angle and you crater.
-Too shallow a flight angle and you miss the rooftop.
The government's version would require SUPREME, almost autopilot like, control and accuracy at the speed the aircraft was flying.

The chances of an amateur pilot landing a 737(?) on its belly at near full cruising speed without it breaking up on impact is EXTREMELY small. Notice that the nose cone in the first frame is 100% INTACT. Landing a 737 on its belly, at near full cruising speed WITHOUT damaging the nose cone?

Aircraft are often pancaked during crash landings but these jets CRUISE at about mach 0.8. Crash landing at (0.66/0.8)= ~90% of cruising speed without damaging the nose cone seems very unlikely?

It would be worth looking at a local high-resolution elevation map of the area. If it is ANYTHING other than billiard-table flat, the government's version of the landing sequence is suspicious.

Some have said the nose cone looks like a missile, unlikely:
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=414 794

Proof #1:
-Security video frame rate ~0.5s
-Nose cone to explosion: One frame
-Nose cone to building distance from nose cone frame ~100m
=> Impact velocity ~ 200 m/s ~ mach 0.66

That's too slow for a missile ... a missile travelling at mach 0.66 would have been seen by many people.

If you knew the model of the security camera you could get another estimate of the jet's pre-impact velocity by back calculating from the apparent pixel blur of the nose cone image.

Proof #2:
Calculate vertical height of nose cone using simple trigonometry, i.e. compare height of Pentagon (known height) in pixels to height of nose cone in pixels as security camera is nearly normal to the flight path.
=> Check this height against the actual nose cone dimensions of the jet-type that is claimed to have hit.

Without actually doing the calcs, it looks about the right size for a 737(?) nose cone...

A ~3m diameter missile flying at mach 0.66 would be VERY conspicuous. There is no such missile in the current US military arsenal... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/index.h tml

The nose cone does look distorted/elongated into a "needle-like" shape but remember that at 200 m/s the nose cone would blur in a 0.5 s exposure.

Proof #3:
Missiles don't fly stably in contact with the ground :)

There are many other opportunities to use the available physical/visual evidence to check whether mass, momentum and energy are conserved for the Pentagon crash... e.g. the fire plume, damage to Pentagons structure (~equivalent to car safety "crash testing").

I'm normally the first to laugh at conspiracy theories but the pentagon hit looks dodgy as hell...

IAAME/FD*: I am a mechanical engineer / fluid dynamicist ...

Something about this is off by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-16 09:40 · Score: 1, Interesting · on US Releasing 9/11 Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Tape

IAAME/FD* My brother pilots 747s. He says an amateur pilot would be capable of pulling the flight manoeuvres that took down the towers. However, the manoeuvre that supposedly took out the Pentagon is another matter altogether. If you believe the gov, the pilot managed to pancake the jet onto the ground about 50-100 yards from the edge of the Pentagon and then "skip" the plane into the side of the pentagon, a bit like skipping a stone off a pond. He says an amateur would NEVER be able to pull off a manoeuvre like that. -Too steep a flight angle and you crater. -Too shallow a flight angle and you miss the rooftop. The government's version would require SUPREME, almost autopilot like, control and accuracy at the speed the aircraft was flying. The chances of an amateur pilot landing a 737(?) on its belly at near full cruising speed without it breaking up on impact is EXTREMELY small. Notice that the nose cone in the first frame is 100% INTACT. Landing a 737 on its belly, at near full cruising speed WITHOUT damaging the nose cone? Aircraft are often pancaked during crash landings but these jets CRUISE at about mach 0.8. Crash landing at (0.66/0.8)= ~90% of cruising speed without damaging the nose cone seems very unlikely? It would be worth looking at a local high-resolution elevation map of the area. If it is ANYTHING other than billiard-table flat, the government's version of the landing sequence is suspicious. Some have said the nose cone looks like a missile, unlikely: http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=setandget& tp=414794&poll_id=0&category_id=20&warned=y Proof #1: -Security video frame rate ~0.5s -Nose cone to explosion: One frame -Nose cone to building distance from nose cone frame ~100m => Impact velocity ~ 200 m/s ~ mach 0.66 That's too slow for a missile ... a missile travelling at mach 0.66 would have been seen by many people. If you knew the model of the security camera you could get another estimate of the jet's pre-impact velocity by back calculating from the apparent pixel blur of the nose cone image. Proof #2: Calculate vertical height of nose cone using simple trigonometry, i.e. compare height of Pentagon (known height) in pixels to height of nose cone in pixels as security camera is nearly normal to the flight path. => Check this height against the actual nose cone dimensions of the jet-type that is claimed to have hit. Without actually doing the calcs, it looks about the right size for a 737(?) nose cone... A ~3m diameter missile flying at mach 0.66 would be VERY conspicuous. There is no such missile in the current US military arsenal... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/index.h tml The nose cone does look distorted/elongated into a "needle-like" shape but remember that at 200 m/s the nose cone would blur in a 0.5 s exposure. Proof #3: Missiles don't fly stably in contact with the ground :) There are many other opportunities to use the available physical/visual evidence to check whether mass, momentum and energy are conserved for the Pentagon crash... e.g. the fire plume, damage to Pentagons structure (~equivalent to car safety "crash testing"). I'm normally the first to laugh at conspiracy theories but the pentagon hit looks dodgy as hell... IAAME/FD*: I am a mechanical engineer / fluid dynamicist ...

Re:Onion router by kehren77 · 2006-05-08 14:17 · Score: 1 · on Social Consequences and Effects of RFID Implants?

No I just don't feel the need to live in the shadows with a tin foil hat on my head.

http://www.imagedump.com/pics/8045.jpg

Re:Eat your cake and burn the calories, too. by dsands1 · 2006-04-05 09:50 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Health Problems Related to the Geek Lifestyle

"Just give up 30 minutes of WoW, 3 times a week, and go run/ride/lift/stretch/something."

Are you freaking kidding?!?!? Giving up 90 minutes of WowW a week is absolutely out of the question. In fact, I'd rather geek out and build a recumbant exercise bike that shut of my monitor if I didn't keep a pre-defined RPM, and thereby keep my WoW fix... So, I did.