Slashdot Mirror
Build Your Own Saturn V
Illbay writes "Space.com has a great story about a company in Colorado that has introduced an incredibly detailed scale model of the Saturn V rocket booster that flies a lot like the real thing! Apogee Components has "taken the time to research the actual vehicles and then used that information correctly in creating the kits," with a scientist from the team that designed the Delta 2 rocket on staff. I remember the old Estes model rocket version of the Saturn V back in the 60s, but they were not very detailed and very difficult to get to fly properly. Looks like Apogee might have a winner."
poste
Something distinct that people will remember better than my name
I was under the impression slashposts never got lost, not so.
Here
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of (-1, Redundant)
StoneCypher is Full of BS
$250 laptops!
Or something. Um. Hey, I should become a film reviewer, eh?
Well anyhow, I did get which one the subject was about after a moment or two, so no harm done (and no offence meant to our trans-atlantic cousins, BTW ;).
Be careful! New moon tonight.
scottsdalesales@algxmail.com
Hot guy, loves to suck cock. Email me anytime.
modz are on crack... that is some racist shit, and should NOT be marked "funny"
That is the funniest thing that I have read all day.
Today my educated friend and I were teaching my less-privileged friend how to read binary, because he thought he was a nerd, and didnt know it (had to be fixed). While teaching him, we got into an argument about how to pronounce binary numbers. Are they read right-to-left like a standard base 10 number, or left-to-right like some heathens think? For example, would 11001 be read one-zero-zero-one-one or one-one-zero-zero-one?
~Chris Hammond
Rush Limbaugh is a fuck.
Rush Limbaugh fucks your mother in the mouth. Then your mom rims his anus until it's clean as a whistle. Didn't you ever notice that funny taste in your mom's mouth when you were kissing her? You were tasting Rush Limbaugh's very own feces in your mother's mouth. Mmmmm good!
The rhyme above is sick and has now properly been modded down as flamebait. Now, about Rush Limbaugh. I dislike Rush Limbaugh quite strongly, and I'm a convervative. I can only imagine what liberals must thing of him. Then again, he talks like a conservative but acts like many a liberal (simply shouting down anyone with whom he disagrees, regardless of what the facts are), so I could be wrong and they might like him, or at least secretly admire him for doing their act so well. However, I think your "Why, hello there Rush Limbaugh" statement needs to be examined.
I'm not a football fan, and so don't recall the name of the quarterback in question or for which team he plays, but I do recall what Limbaugh said about him. His statement was (this is pretty close to a verbatim quote, and is certainly factually accurate) that (the quarterback) is being overrated by sports journalists because they want a black quarterback to be seen as succeeding.
This ignores some historical facts, such as the success of Warren Moon, who was an excellent quarterback and is famous enough that even I know who he is, and there have been/are other successful black quarterbacks, but again, I'm not a football fan and so can't name them.
It also impunes the journalistic integrity of the sports journalists about whom Rush was talking when he said that. He essentially stated that hsi fellow sports journalists, all of whom have far more experience in that line than he does and who probably also have more journalistic integrity than he does, would like about an athlete's skill in order to make him look good, and would do so because of his skin color. That's a pretty serious charge, and if I were one of those journalists, I would certainly take Limbaugh to task for it. For that matter, if I were one of his co-broadcasters during that game, I would have taken him to task for it right there on the air and made him defend that statement. Since Limbaugh is pretty bad at defending himself in a fair verbal fight, he probably would have fallen flat on his face.
What Limbaugh did not say, however, is "(The quarterback) is not a good quarterback because he's black" or "(The quarterback) is not as good as a white quarterback" or anything at all like that. He said that he thought (the quarterback) was overrated, and that the reason people were overrating him was that he was black. Some sort of a weird sportscaster affirmative action, effectively.
I dislike Rush Limbaugh for his hypocrisy in saying that drug users should be jailed, all the while himself he was addicted to prescription pain killers and apparently buying them illegally.
I dislike Rush Limbaugh for his hypocrisy in only allowing people to bring up opposing viewpoints on his show if those people are one or more of: A) Idiots B) Don't have their facts straight and haven't prepared for the debate at all; Rush has, and he'll eat them up and make them look like choice A; C) They may not be idiots and may know their facts, but are so poor at debating that we will still do B and make them look like A. If someone who is prepared, intelligent, and good at debate takes an opposing view and is beating Rush, the Limbaugh reaction is to just hang up on the person and often say something disparaging after the line is cut. I've heard it dozens of times, and the radio station where I listened to him only carried his show once a week for one hour. Think how often he must have done it for me to have heard it so many times.
I dislike Limbaugh for being a general self-affgrandizing blowhard and a really poor representative of conservatism, who ought to just shut up and go away.
However, I can't dislike Limbaugh for make a racist statement, because he did not make one. I don't know if he is a racist or not, but the statement was not racist. It was controversial, probably meant to be, a stupid thing to say and rude to his fellow sportscasters, so I can dislike him for those reasons, but I can't dislike him for a racist statement he did not make.
Believe me, it sticks in my throat to feel I have to defend Limbaugh for anything, but fair is fair.
If you could speak English properly and not be a vulgar pidgin, perhaps I would agree. However, I found it funny, and I'll mark it as I see it.
Oops, that should have been "would lie about an athlete's skill" not "would like." That'll teach me to submit without previewing. Doh!
I see your points about Rush Limbaugh being an ignorant fool. I've listened to Rush's show and I see what you're talking about, but I've also heard many other broadcasters do the same, so I've grown somewhat accustomed to it. Limbaugh does have some points, and for all the negative about him, he does present a side of the story that you might not otherwise get from the generally liberal media.
Donovan McNabb is, indeed, overrated by the media. But it's not at all because of racial reasons at all. Let's face it, fans and sportscasters alike enjoy watching a quarterback who can scramble and can turn a play that looks like a sack into a big play to get positive yardage. It's not necessarily the greatest style of play, either, and is one that can lead to injury problems. Also, Philadelphia's defense really is underrated and doesn't get enough credit.
Now, what bothers me more is there's people who have said equally bad or worse things and there's been little to no fuss about it. Take Red Sox pitcher Pedro Martinez. He lashed out against ESPN in an expletive-filled tirade and yet nobody made a fuss about it. He accused ESPN, and specifically Peter Gammons, of being racist. Pedro claimed that Sammy Sosa was treated unfairly due to race. Martinez pretty much said that Barry Zito was overrated by the media because he's white. Nobody made a fuss about these comments. Absolutely nothing happened. And yet what he said was worse than what Rush said.
Cubs manager Dusty Baker also made some questionable comments about black players withstanding heat better than white players. There was some complaints about Baker, but not the outcry there was about Rush. He wasn't forced to resign. There was no suspension leveled against him by the Cubs or Major League Baseball.
Why is it we pick and choose who we're going to go after when they make possibly racist comments? All of these examples - Rush, Pedro, and Baker - made stupid comments, and all of them had the potential to be inflammatory. If we want to stop comments that may provoke racial tensions, we can't pick and choose who we stop and who we let go. If a fuss is going to be made about Rush's comments, we can't let Pedro or Baker off the hook, either.
Stupid comments like the ones mentioned above have no place in sports. Sports are constantly becoming more and more ethnically diverse, and as such, these comments have the potential to alienate more and more players.
It's perfectly okay for anyone to have those views. It's also okay for them to say what they thing. That's what the first amendment is all about. On the other hand, it's the right and responsibility of teams, leagues, and networks to encourage an attitude of ethnic tolerance in sports and to remove those who choose to say things that are racially inflammatory.
If Rush can't say it, why can Pedro or Dusty?
And that was the sound of *my* joke going right over your head (hint: electrons don't orbit - in fact, they don't move in the classic macroscopic sense. That's why the whole "nucleus with the electrons orbiting around it", i.e., the Bohr model, has been abandoned for many decades now. Thus a single atom is *not* a model of the solar system).
Sigh. I had to explain it. I knew I would. And the guy who got it and corrected you by pointing out that I misspelled 'Bore' is now moderated -1, Troll.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
That was NEVER the point of Limbaugh's comments.
Limbaugh, rather, was stating that were it not for the "unwritten rules" of sports journalism, Donovan McNabb would NEVER be considered a "great quarterback." The "unwritten rules" include an "affirmative action" clause whereby a mediocre black quarterback has to be "propped up" and made to appear brilliant, because there "aren't enough of them."
And Rush could've named yet another mediocre QB talent who happens to be black: Kordell Stewart who now plays for the Bears. Even though Stewart has had a very disappointing career--spending about as much time on the injured list as on the playing field in Pittsburgh and now Chicago--you typically have always heard HIM propped up as well.
Stewart's hurt again, so he's out for the season. And he and McNabb have something ELSE in common: All the other black starting QBs, such as Daunte Culpepper of the Vikings, Aaron Brooks of the Saints, and the best of the whole lot--in fact, one of the best QBs in the league--Steve McNair of the Titans, play in small markets that the national (read: bicoastal) media doesn't give a hoot about.
McNabb plays in Philadelphia, one of the top ten TV markets.
And THAT'S why he gets touted as a "premier" QB, even though he ranks in the bottom half of the league in QB rating.
So once again, RUSH WAS RIGHT, even though the Left has to lie about what he said and about what it all means. He was right, and nothing that anyone else has to write about it--including me--can alter that FACT.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
If that were true, then it would be "all Steve McNair, all the time."
But the following facts are pertinent:
1. McNair is a GREAT quarterback--probably one of the three or four best in the league--and so he doesn't need the Affirmative Action props from the media elitists.
2. McNair plays in a small market in the South, not a large market in the Northeast, so he is irrelevant as far as generating the ratings that the media elitists covet.
No, Rush was right: McNabb gets the ink and the airwaves because he is a mediocre black quarterback and needs propping up. He's an affirmative action case.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
While we're at it, let's throw in two more recent examples of black quarterbacks that do a lot of scrambling and received a lot of media hype.
Example one is Michael Vick. He plays in the only large southern market, Atlanta. Vick was great at Virginia Tech and has been every bit as good in the NFL. It shows up even more because the Falcons are absolutely lost without him. Vick is the real deal and is probably the best quarterback in the league. The media loves him, and his style of play doesn't hurt things.
Example two is Kordell Stewart. We'll discuss his time in Pittsburgh, and when he first came into the league. And Pittsburgh isn't a particularly large market. It doesn't compare to Philadelphia or Atlanta. Anyways, Stewart could play running back or wide receiver in addition to quarterback. He was a perfect example of a guy who made things happen by scrambling, and the media fell in love with him. After his early success in the league, however, we've found out how good, or not, he really is. Everyone knows, now, that Stewart just isn't that good, has an bad attitude, and is one of the worst quarterbacks in the league. And he just might be the worst. He's a perfect example of the media overrating a quarterback. Was it because he was black? No. Was it because of his style of play? You bet.
And let's face it, the media has come down hard on McNabb of late. He's played terrible this year, and they've acknowledged it.
Offense gets ratings. But not all offenses. Offenses that make big plays, whether it be on the ground or through the air, get ratings. A power running game is boring to a lot of people. A good defense is boring to a lot of people. Teams that win on their defense don't attract ratings. The only reason Tampa Bay's defense gets the respect it deserves and more is because Warren Sapp's big mouth get ratings, too. It's true. But in general, making the highlight reel is what gets you respect from the media.
I said two examples, but I'm going to include a third to further illustrate my point. It's not in the NFL, though.
In the preseason in college football, among all the hype about Miami, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and the Maurice Clarett mess, a quarterback at a midwest school that hasn't enjoyed much success in two decades got plenty of attention. If you don't know, I'm talking about Brad Smith at Missouri. He came in last year as a freshman and beat out senior quarterback Kirk Farmer for the starting job. During his freshman year, Smith surprised opposing defenses, ran over them, and gave some good teams quite a scare. Missouri finished 5-7, so the hype didn't come from winning. He got respect for his style of play, scrambling, making plays, and having great speed.
And don't get me wrong, Smith deserves all the respect he gets. He has a decent shot at being one of the five finalists this year for the Heisman Trophy. And he's only a sophomore. He won't win it, and shouldn't, but he really is that good. And you can bet he'll be right at the top of the list, next year. Face it, the media loves quarterbacks that scramble around and make big plays happen. That style of play gets ratings, and it's here to stay.
Oh, and by the way, I agree that McNair is underrated.
But you missed the point in my post. It wasn't about why quarterbacks get overrated so much as it's about the double standard that exists. And the double standard is far more troubling to me than a quarterback getting overrated for any reason.