Heh... the whole 4000 field seemed a bit messy in my time. Was assigned MOS of 4063 (cobol programmer), but the training was all ADA... and eventually somehow my MOS got officially changed to 4067 (ADA programmer). At the school they even told us up front we'd probably never see a lick of coding work again once we left.
They were pretty much right for a while... was basically everything from helpdesk to sys/netadmin. So then they came up with a new MOS for that (4066), and offered it to all of the 67's already doing that work.
Too bad I was on both advance and rear-party for an op in Korea at the time... by the time word filtered down to my platoon, and then finally way out to me, there was no way to meet the deadline. Weird... all of the guys back in Oki got switched, and those who'd been temp assigned to this Korean thing didn't.
Lo & behold... my next duty station was an actual programming job, in a programming unit. At a base I'd never even heard of previously. Oh, The Suck.
Good times.:)
Not that many of us 4067's around, so thought I'd say "hi".
>There shouldn't even be an Air Force. The Army Air Corps were some ballsy sons of bitches, innovative, and part of the entire team. That Army Air Corps invented close in ground support for the grunts fighting on the ground, among other things.
What the hell? And in the same paragraph claiming not to be forgetting the Marines? Come on...
Sure, everyone did some of that in WWI. But the French and Germans were the first to think of coming up with real tactics specifically for that purpose, and the Germans built the first aircraft designed for it.
But the Marines were the ones who really developed the concept of coordinated air-ground support as we know it today. Putting it into practice and refining it (for better or worse) during the Banana Wars. When WWII rolled around, they were prepared to use it. (The island hopping campaign relied heavily on Marine Aviator support.)
Meanwhile the Army Aviators wanted to focus on large bombers and air-air fighters... both easier than ground support, and "more efficient", and they WANTED to be separate from the Army. WWII taught them that yes, air-ground support was neccessary, and they learned (the hard way) how to do it to some extent. But then after the war they went off on their old ways and ideas again, forgetting how to do close ground support soon after getting their way. (To become a separate Air Force.)
The Marines started using helicopters first, too. Though I think the Army may have been the first to use them as gunships.
Is a firetruck responsible for maintaining proper water pressure at the fire hydrant it is hooked up to? No. That's not its job.
It's a DAW, not a preamp. If you have to change the "gain" of something in Ardour, you're already doing it wrong. If it could... all it'd be doing is allowing you to continue to do it wrong.
If you are feeding it a weak signal, fix the damn signal. If you are feeding it an overly strong signal, fix the damn signal.
"Fix the damn signal" means adjust your outboard equipment (preamp, mixer, noise generator, or whatever) and/or your soundcard's mixer to get a proper signal happening to begin with. Don't feed your DAW a crappy signal, unless you WANT to record a crappy signal. Get it right as early in the chain as possible, because once you are in the DAW, it's too late. You're already past the AD conversion... any gain is nothing more than a little math to make it louder, which can be done at any time. It'll never make it "better".
If it is too late fix the signal, and you are dealing with pre-recorded audio that is too weak (or outboard equipment that isn't up to snuff), fix it right (permanently) with an audio editor. That way you aren't wasting CPU doing that same digital math over and over again every time you hit play.
And if you absolutely, positively can't do it the right way, and insist on changing your gain in the DAW itself... yes, you can do it with a plugin. (Not exactly hard to find... I found no less than three already installed, and I've never installed any but the most common/basic plugin packages. And that's on a plain vanilla Ubuntu machine, not a studio machine with lots of goodies on it.) In the end, doing this with a plugin is no different than having it built in. It is better, because it gets it off the damn screen for most people, who will not and should not need it 99% of the time.
Sounds like a lack of either minimal effort or minimal understanding of recording in general. Go get a Mac and use Garageband. It was made for you.
(And hey, I'm not knocking it. I do have a Macbook, and have used GB for sketching around with. It's not bad. Inability to export midi is probably the only really major drawback.)
If you wanna knock Ardour, say something like "it lacks MIDI functionality found in most other DAWs", which would be true. Until v3 comes out, at least.
Neither of you is correct. The parent is using a specific terms, denying broader terms. You are using a broad term, disregarding the role context plays in determining an acceptable level of specificity. There is at least one level within each definition at which a Marine is not a Soldier.
In broad terms, a Marine is a soldier. In narrower terms, as in "especially in the army" vs "a member of the United States Marine Corps" a Marine is not a Soldier.
Since this thread is in fact about the United States Marine Corps, it is reasonable for someone to demand use of the more specific term, since the subject being discussed does not apply to all that fall under the broader term. The parent simply should have used caps to make the particular level of distinction they were trying to make more clear.
Marines are not Soldiers = TRUE Marines are not soldiers = FALSE
Parent claimed the latter, so calling it false is accurate. However the context should have made it clear that they intended the former, so... you're just being pedantic. As am I. How's that for an old jarhead?:)
Right from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: (2) marine Function: noun Date: 1669
1 a: the mercantile and naval shipping of a country b: seagoing ships especially in relation to nationality or class 2: one of a class of soldiers serving on shipboard or in close association with a naval force ; specifically : a member of the United States Marine Corps 3: an executive department (as in France) having charge of naval affairs 4: a marine picture : seascape
Nanda Devi Unsoeld - Willie's only daughter and Crag's sister died on the mountain she was named for in 1976. I'd met her in the Tetons in the early 1970s. She had climbed many peaks higher than her namesake - but passed away from High Altitude Pulmonary Edema while stuck at altitude due to a storm.
Isn't her cause of death actually unknown?
I thought HAPE was only one of few different potential causes, and one of the less likely of them. (As she hadn't shown clear symptoms of either cerebral or pulmonary edema.)
I read the most accepted likely cause was Mesenteric Thrombosis. (According to expedition doctor Andy Harvard, after consulting with Charlie Houston and other high-altitude experts.) A clot in the artery supplying blood to the membranes around the intestines.
Another theory was a heart attack. Supposedly induced by by a combination of anemia and high altitude, with the anemia brought on by gastrointestinal bleeding over the course of a few days. (She had just finished a bout of bloody diarrhea within a day or two, and had been laid up feeling weakened. She was pretty sick, and had already decided not to try the summit at that point.)
Sorry to bring any of that up, but the Unsoeld/Nandi Devi story is one of the saddest mountaineering tales I've ever heard. I always thought it even more difficult because it wasn't any of the better known high altitude illnesses like HACE or HAPE, which are more recognizable and may have prompted an immediate decision by the others to descend.
I consider SRV's Little Wing to be the definitive version. Jimi wrote it as a sweet little song, SRV took it and expanded it into an instrumental blues guitar masterpiece. I think it's one of the best guitar recordings ever done, in any genre. Found it here.
> I've never really been into Bjork, have only heard 2 or 3 of her songs but they have been quite varied so there probably would be a lot of her stuff that I'd like without even having to 'get used' to it
I'm more into her earlier stuff... the first three albums in particular. (Debut, Post, Homogenic.) I actually heard her for the for the first time on Dave Letterman, doing "Bachelorette" from Homogenic. I was stunned, and went and bought every album she'd done up to that point (those three) the very next day.:)
>When I said Axel I meant Axel Rose, who must be a tenor too
Yep, that's who I meant too. Axl Rose. Maiden started in the mid 70's and is still putting out albums. Guns N Roses started in the mid 80's, and started to vanish after 94.
>I don't know what it is about the Iron Maiden guy's voice that ticks me off. Maybe I'll get used to it one day.
Yeah, maybe consider giving it a shot.:) I myself didn't really care for the band much when I was younger, based on what few tunes I'd heard. I was a thrash kid (Metallica/Megadeth/Slayer/Anthrax/Testament/etc) and it just didn't catch me, and I didn't like the vocals either. So I understand.
I first got an appreciation for it while playing in a cover band in Japan. They wanted to do a Maiden tune, and picked "The Trooper", which I'd never heard before. I learned it, and it was very fun to play, and I really liked it. Started checking 'em out again, and really liked it this time around. Vocally to me he seems similar to a broadway actor in a play, acting out/singing a story or monologue. That's how I think of it.
>Ya I was talkin about Aint Talkin Bout Love, but the first place that I actually heard that riff was in an Apollo 440 dub remix called Aint Talkin Bout Dub, it's pretty good.
Heh... I'll take your word for it. For some reason that brings to mind "The Fuck Shop" by 2 Live Crew. They sampled the opening lick, and used it in a recurring loop.
> But I do like some solos if they sound good as well as just being technically impressive > I like the song 'Eruption' which is just pure Van Halen soloing all the way:)
OK, I've got some for ya...
The album Rust in Peace by Megadeth (a thrash/speed metal masterpiece) is one of the best jaw dropping guitar albums ever done, and not just with soloing. A lot of the riffing is as amazing and interesting as any good solo, and there are plenty of those to go around, too. (Songs to check out first are Lucretia, Tornado of Souls, Take No Prisoners, and Hangar 18.) Warning... Dave's vocals can be an acquired taste, too. I dig 'em. Best described as an angry sneer that manages to carry a bit of tune.
>I enjoy classical guitar, and can play stuff like that intro from Classical Gas, a bit of Angie by Davy Graham, some Eric Clapton Unplugged stuff (Tears in Heaven is great). I also started learning a guitar arrangement of The Entertainer, I should go back and re-learn/finish it (I used to be a bit jealous of my sis being able to play it on the piano, even though I'm not that into pianos:p ).
Cool. Other good metal guitar albums: Testament (Practice What You Preach, The Gathering) Pantera (Cowboys From Hell, Vulgar Display of Power)
Some more recent metal you might like: Five Finger Death Punch (The Way of the Fist) Trivium (The Crusade)
Faves of mine in non-metal genres: Eric Clapton - Layla (non-unplugged), Crossroads, etc Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler - Sultans of Swing, others Stevie Ray Vaughn - Little Wing, Voodoo Chile (Hendrix covers... love Jimi, but Stevie just kills these) ZZ Top (um... lots of it) Oysterhead - The Grand Pecking Order (Les Claypool from Primus, Trey Anastasio from Phish, Steward Copeland from The Police) Bjork - not exactly guitar music, but what the hell. I'm listing it anyway.:)
> The Fire and the Flames rhythm parts as I kinda just play the first rhythm part as fast as I can because it sounds mental, but obviously I was going too fast.
On that note, you should check out the last song on Rock Band... Green Grass & High Tides (by the Outlaws). It's a killer, and a very cool song. Starts out simple, lulling you into a false sense of "hey, this is gonna be easy".:)
Machine Head is damn good thrash metal nowadays. As is Arch Enemy... but I lean more toward Machine Head in the vocal department. (Arch Enemy was actually the first band I saw that day, at the Ozzfest I saw Maiden at). Their most recent album (The Blackening) is probably my favorite metal album of the last few years. I have Doomsday Machine, but haven't heard Arch Enemy's latest yet.
If he likes metal, but with heavier singing, and cool riffs, he'd probably like Machine Head.
And maybe Testament. "The Gathering" is Chuck Billy at his best, and another all-time favorite of mine. In fact, that reminds me... I need to go out and buy their new album NOW!
Someone else mentioned Dragonforce... I was actually going to suggest that. "If you don't like girly tenor vocals, and you don't like fast "twiddly" guitars, you'll REALLY hate these guys!".
> all seem to be very long with pointless solos > Actually watching your video there one of the main factors is that I just don't like the guy's vocals.
OK, that's the sort of criticism/opinion I can understand and get behind, even if I don't agree.:)
> Axel probably came after but you know what I mean
Yep, Axl definitely came after (and went long before). Maiden predates Axl by about 10 years, and is still trucking along over 15 years since Axl last did anything.
I do know what you mean though. I actually like the vocals, as being a bit different from most metal. He's a tenor, like Plant (Led Zeppelin) Dio (Black Sabbath/Dio) Halford (Judas Priest), etc. I also give him a bit of a pass as one of the inventors of the genre to begin with. (Without Sabbath, Priest and Maiden as inspiration there might never have been a Metallica to compare them to.)
I won't argue taste, though. That's cool if it doesn't float your boat. Same goes for solos. I get what you mean by pointless. Many are. Some aren't... I consider the good ones an additional (or even "counter") melody that takes a song somewhere it wouldn't have gone without it, or via vocals alone. If I can remember it and hum/whistle along, it's probably a good one. I agree some of Maiden's aren't. But think many are.
As for the singer, the dude is also a bit of a geek. With a few exceptions, most of the lyrics are based on sci-fi books (one entire album based loosely on an Orson Scott Card novel), historical events, and old literature. (Admittedly, they sometimes they can be a bit corny.) He works as a commercial airline pilot (757) on his off-time, and flies their own jet when touring. Oddball trivia... he's also competed internationally at fencing. Weird.:)
> I had also recently lumped Van Halen with Iron Maiden in the same 'crazy widdly guitar solos for no reason' category. but after hearing my flatmate play them in his car and realising that the riff from "Aint Talkin Bout Dub"
Ain't Talking Bout Love?
Yeah, early VH is good stuff. Sometimes solos are an acquired taste. Just because the notes are fast and one might not be able to follow it at first, doesn't mean there isn't a point and/or direction. There's a few categories of classical music that could be categorized the same way. (Bach's fugues for example. Not to mention flamenco and other classical guitar styles. And lots of jazz.)
>Iron Maiden have a song on Guitar Hero III and it was far more simple than I expected (though still quite frantic), but I just find all the "six.. six six!" bullshit a bit much when mixed with a screamy girly singer. The actual music was okay.
Well, that tune is about a dude getting the shit scared out of him by a bad dream (stumbling across some sort of satanic cult ritual) that seemed way too real. So screaming like a girl might actually be appropriate.:)
As for girly... well, even if he sounds it, he doesn't look it. That bastard is in shape, too. Saw them at Ozzfest a few years ago and they basically blew everybody away. All bands, of all types, of all ages. Belting that shit out while sprinting around, climbing up stuff, jumping... it was like a damn obstacle course. Dude is in his fifties, and he made all the young metal dudes look like lifeless pansies, and of course next to him Ozzy was like a rotting zombie. Suprised the hell out of me, to be honest. The whole place was going nuts, too.
The guitar hero type games (I have rock band) are basically (very fun) rhythm trainers. And the rhythmical aspects of Maiden are all about stamina, more so than any complexity.
I've played a few Maiden covers for real on stage in my time, and I can tell you that if you're not in shape, they can cramp the hell out of your hands.
At any rate I know what you meant now, and it makes much more sense.
Um... I'm trying to figure out what you mean by crazy stupid stuff = Iron Maiden.
Being quite familiar with all sorts of music, metal in particular, and most certainly both Metallica and Iron Maiden, the statement doesn't make much since.
I could understand "I don't like Iron Maiden". I could also understand "I think Iron Maiden is stupid".
But calling their material "crazy stupid stuff" makes it sound like you've never even heard them before, and you just pulled a name out of a hat.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but most (fans or not) consider Maiden to be pretty straightforward. The music more progressive than most pop, but far from overcomplicated. The vocals are very melodic, and probably closer to what one might hear in a stage musical (broadway style) than most other metal. Their stage show is impressive, but not out of the norm for a rock show. Their image is pretty much within the bounds of "rock bands" in general. (I know some folks that were scared off by their mascot Eddie and associated artwork... that were genuinely suprised when they actually listened to it.)
As far as metal goes they are one of the founders of the genre, but are actually pretty tame. Probably one of the most "accessible" of all metal bands. The term crazy just doesn't fit. I'd go so far as to attach it to Metallica long before Maiden.
There are so many bands worthy of that term... Maiden is probably the last metal band I'd describe as "crazy".
Bits of Hook in Mouth: "A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies"
Bits of Liar: "Make up your stories, truth's so hard to say Brain is numb and your tongue will surely dig your grave"
"Start trouble, spread pain Piss and venom, in your veins Talk nasty, breathe fire Smell rotten, you're a liar Sweat liquor, breathe snot Eat garbage, spit blood Diseased, health hazard Scum bag, filthy bastard Greasy face, teeth decay Hair matted, drunk all day Abscessed, sunken veins Rot gut, scrambled brain Steal money, crash cars Rob jewelry, hock guitars Rot in hell, it's time you know To your master, off you go You're a liar A fucking liar"
There were some crapfests, but it wasn't consistently as terrible as you make it sound. While you're right, they've been better recently... it wasn't all bad before. I'd say out of the 7 preceding the absolute crapfest that was nipplegate, at least 2 were pretty good, and 2 others were watchable.
FWIW, I could care less about the nipple... the show and music just plain sucked.
2003 was Shania Twain, No Doubt, and Sting. Watchable. 2002 was U2. Decent. I'd say even with Tom Petty/Rolling Stones. 2001 = crapfest (Aerosmith doing late career pap w/N Sync, Britney, Nelly, others) 2000 = crapfest (Phil Collins, Aguilera, a big orchestra, etc) 1999 was Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Stevie Wonder, others. Interesting. Watchable. 1998 was Smokey Robinson, The Temptations, others. Not my thing but not terrible. 1997 was ZZ Top, Blues Brothers, and James Brown. Pretty damn cool if you ask me.
I'd say the best bet is to keep the artist list either short and somewhat similar (like 97) or just stick to a single big name (like 2002 and 2005-2008).
I do have to say... Prince was the shit. Best halftime since 97, and one of the better ones ever.
(Although the street between is actually 14, not w.*y... it's pretty obvious you nailed the spot. I figured my info would be enough to narrow it down, if you were indeed in the same area.:)
No email... but my email info here has been out of date for a long while... you'll probably get a bounce. Just fixed it now, though. Give it another go, if you like.:)
Whoah... I could swear you're talking about the library here.
Same size town. Those same services. And a newer, bigger building is under way, about 200yds away from the current one. I wonder if you could possibly be talking about the same place.
In which case, oddly enough... I have the architectural drawings/plans for that new building right here next to me.:)
The commentary on the Spinal Tap DVD is absolutely worth it.
The original cast (the band) does the whole thing entirely in character, as if they were watching an old documentary of themselves. It is hilarious, and like having an entirely new Spinal Tap movie that is nearly as good as the original.
The book does mention that domestication of bison has been attempted in the 19th and 20 centuries, but that success has been limited.
And from what I understand, bison are not considered domesticated to this day (it looks like we may finally be successful, before too much longer.) Within the last few decades they have been increasing raised commercially (partially domesticated), but that has involved genetic mixing with regular cattle (an option unavailable before 1492). Even then, it is quite different from raising normal cattle.
They can run up to 35mph, they can jump right over standard cattle fencing. And quite frankly, they can be mean and nasty as hell.
Not to say the Auroch (cow ancestor) was a picnic to deal with. They were supposedly pretty mean, too. But obviously we figured out how to domesticate the auroch before the bison despite being familiar with both, so something about them must have proved more difficult. (Some old-world equivelents of the American bison have never been domesticated, either. European bison, cape buffalo, guar, etc.)
If we have this much trouble handling bison nowadays (with all of our experience handling other large domesticated animals, not to mention modern equipment, scientific knowledge, and genetic tampering), it doesn't surprise me that early Americans weren't able to.
There weren't really any smaller animals (non-flighty ungulates... goats, sheep, etc) for them to practice on, for one thing. Starting out your first domestication efforts/experiments on bison instead of little sheep... Sounds rather intimidating.:)
Not to get to much into this stuff, but some of the contradictions are easily explained away. Others aren't.
You picked an easy one...
Plants of the field/= all plants Plants of the field = food and utility crops planted purposely by man.
Most of which in fact did not exist (in any recognizable form) until they were cultivated by man. At first unintentionally, later on purpose.
For example, the staple grains of the middle east (and elsewhere in the world) originated as wild grasses with much smaller kernels than modern or even ancient times. Selection by man of larger grained specimens for gathering as food actually played a large part in their evolution into more current forms.
An extreme example is a modern ear of corn. Early versions were tiny things, two or three inches long.
Not disputing your argument... just saying you can do better.:)
You mean the very common consumer version of AES/EBU? Duh.
You're missing part of the concept here... it's called a microphone. Look it up.
It's used for recording compression waves (caused by vibrating objects) present in a medium, usually air or water. It has a part that can be vibrated or moved by those waves, and converts them into an analog electrical signal... typically via magnetic induction or a voltage differential.
Slapping some converters on the tail end of that gadget doesn't make it digital any more than sticking an electronic thermometer in your butt would make you an android.
All it does is
a) make the wires shorter (millimeters or centimeters instead of meters)
b) limit the choices of converting components to what is small enough to stuff into an appropriately sized package (usually a small handheld tube of sorts).
"A" is great. "B" sucks. The greatness of "A" nowhere near overcomes the suckage introduced by "B".
>Having a mic that uses S/PDIF is just fundamentally better than using analog cables.
No it's not. At least not until best-of-class versions of all of the equipment involved in the trip from soundwave to a digital signal are all available in a capsule the size of a thumb, and can actually fit in a microphone. It may come, but I wouldn't hold your breath for it.
Until then you are better off with a short (as possible) run of good quality balanced and shielded cable. Plug said cable into the best preamp and best ADC you can get your hands on. Now you have digital that doesn't suck.
At that point why would you want just simple S/PDIF output anyway? It'd be silly to limit your choices of digital transfer to a single protocol or connection type. Why not ADAT Lightpipe, or MADI? Or whatever?
> Obviously, if you combine a great interface with crappy components you can still end up worse off
Aye... you came close to enlightenment there.
> but all other things being equal, an S/PDIF microphone is simply superior to analog mics.
And then lost it.
First, all other things aren't equal.
Second and most importantly, the statement contradicts itself when measured against reality. An S/PDIF microphone cannot be simply superior to an analog mic, because an S/PDIF microphone IS an analog mic.:)
You may be right about some stretches of the trip, but saying you'll see NOTHING driving up to Alaska through Canada is absolutely false.
Sure, there's not a lot of man-made stuff. And you have to stop at every single gas station for large stretches because they ARE that far apart (or more).
But the AlCan was without question the most kickass scenic roadtrip I've been on yet, and I've been on a few. Mountains, glaciers, forests, rivers, canyons/cliffs, lakes... you name it.
Not to mention exciting if the weather turns ugly. Large trucks have the right-of-way simply because they are bigger than you, and there is nobody else around to witness anything. So if you are nervously driving down a steep grade on a tight curvy stretch of no-shoulder 2-lane pavement with 2 inches of ice on it during a minor snowstorm while trying to avoid sliding into the tiny concrete barrier that probably won't save you from falling 1000ft or so down the gaping chasm on your immediate right (the passenger gets a lovely view straight down) and you encounter a truck coming uphill from the other direction... try, just try to remain completely calm! (How's that for a run-on?) And prepare to get the fuck outta the way, cuz they will cut the corners and drive right down the middle as close to straight as they can get, lanes and little cars be damned.
Not exactly naptime!
No, unless one lacks all appreciation of natural wonder, I don't think they will be sleeping any more than normal. If you have a difficult time staying awake in the absence of bustling civilization, you might even fail to reach your destination in one piece.:)
I think you might have the driving time estimates messed up a bit, too. I've actually driven a majority of the Florida to Alaska route you describe, in two separate trips. (SW Georgia to Oregon, and Oregon to Wasilla Alaska.) I remember the Alaska bit taking at least as long or longer than the other despite the shorter distance (2950 vs 2500 miles). It is simply slower going than the Interstate freeways down here. (Some parts had whoop-de-doos, or gravel, and so on.) I decided to take a look at Google Maps out of curiosity.
This is assuming 10 hours or so per driving days, which is probably unrealistic for this long of a trip without splitting driving duties with a partner or two.
Miami to Seattle = 3360 miles, 49 hrs = 5 days Seattle to Tok AK = 1941 miles, 38 hrs = 4 days
Now, for crossing Alaska. There is no road to the Bering Strait, so have to figure Tok to Fairbanks, then a simple (not very accurate) measurement to Nome. Tok to Fairbanks is 200 miles/3.5 hours. A straight shot (if even possible) to Nome looks like would come out around 500 miles at least, likely more. Sticking with Google's optimistic time estimates, that'd be maybe 9 hours. Would probably be getting tired by this time, so wouldn't want to try it in a single day. So...
Tok to Nome, AK = 700 miles, 12.5 hrs, = 2 short days
Now, adjusting these numbers to your given timescale (FL to WA in 4 days) requires a 12 hour driving day. Adjusting the others to match we get:
Miami to Seattle = 4 days Seattle to Tok AK = 3 days Tok to Nome AK = 1 day
My point is simply that the stretch between WA and AK takes longer than you might think. It may be shorter, but it is slower and will not take only half the time crossing the US does.
As for crossing Alaska, you can't even reasonably do it right now in a car. But if a real cross-country road were to be built I wouldn't be suprised if it were up to twice as long as my estimate, which would stretch a drive to 2 days. But not 3 or 4. That'd have to be one hell of a crooked road.
So... while your 6 day super-speed estimate out in the barren wilderness might not be too far off, but switch the legs around. Going north is the part that would be 3 or 4 days, while crossing Alaska would be more like 2. And it wouldn't be nearly as boring as you think. Can't speak for the Asia
Slashdot Mirror
Why not go whole-hog, and engineer us a slig?
Heh... the whole 4000 field seemed a bit messy in my time. Was assigned MOS of 4063 (cobol programmer), but the training was all ADA... and eventually somehow my MOS got officially changed to 4067 (ADA programmer). At the school they even told us up front we'd probably never see a lick of coding work again once we left.
They were pretty much right for a while... was basically everything from helpdesk to sys/netadmin. So then they came up with a new MOS for that (4066), and offered it to all of the 67's already doing that work.
Too bad I was on both advance and rear-party for an op in Korea at the time... by the time word filtered down to my platoon, and then finally way out to me, there was no way to meet the deadline. Weird... all of the guys back in Oki got switched, and those who'd been temp assigned to this Korean thing didn't.
Lo & behold... my next duty station was an actual programming job, in a programming unit. At a base I'd never even heard of previously. Oh, The Suck.
Good times. :)
Not that many of us 4067's around, so thought I'd say "hi".
>There shouldn't even be an Air Force. The Army Air Corps were some ballsy sons of bitches, innovative, and part of the entire team. That Army Air Corps invented close in ground support for the grunts fighting on the ground, among other things.
What the hell? And in the same paragraph claiming not to be forgetting the Marines? Come on...
Sure, everyone did some of that in WWI. But the French and Germans were the first to think of coming up with real tactics specifically for that purpose, and the Germans built the first aircraft designed for it.
But the Marines were the ones who really developed the concept of coordinated air-ground support as we know it today. Putting it into practice and refining it (for better or worse) during the Banana Wars. When WWII rolled around, they were prepared to use it. (The island hopping campaign relied heavily on Marine Aviator support.)
Meanwhile the Army Aviators wanted to focus on large bombers and air-air fighters... both easier than ground support, and "more efficient", and they WANTED to be separate from the Army. WWII taught them that yes, air-ground support was neccessary, and they learned (the hard way) how to do it to some extent. But then after the war they went off on their old ways and ideas again, forgetting how to do close ground support soon after getting their way. (To become a separate Air Force.)
The Marines started using helicopters first, too. Though I think the Army may have been the first to use them as gunships.
Huh? Change the gain of what? Why?
Is a firetruck responsible for maintaining proper water pressure at the fire hydrant it is hooked up to? No. That's not its job.
It's a DAW, not a preamp. If you have to change the "gain" of something in Ardour, you're already doing it wrong. If it could... all it'd be doing is allowing you to continue to do it wrong.
If you are feeding it a weak signal, fix the damn signal.
If you are feeding it an overly strong signal, fix the damn signal.
"Fix the damn signal" means adjust your outboard equipment (preamp, mixer, noise generator, or whatever) and/or your soundcard's mixer to get a proper signal happening to begin with. Don't feed your DAW a crappy signal, unless you WANT to record a crappy signal. Get it right as early in the chain as possible, because once you are in the DAW, it's too late. You're already past the AD conversion... any gain is nothing more than a little math to make it louder, which can be done at any time. It'll never make it "better".
If it is too late fix the signal, and you are dealing with pre-recorded audio that is too weak (or outboard equipment that isn't up to snuff), fix it right (permanently) with an audio editor. That way you aren't wasting CPU doing that same digital math over and over again every time you hit play.
And if you absolutely, positively can't do it the right way, and insist on changing your gain in the DAW itself... yes, you can do it with a plugin. (Not exactly hard to find... I found no less than three already installed, and I've never installed any but the most common/basic plugin packages. And that's on a plain vanilla Ubuntu machine, not a studio machine with lots of goodies on it.) In the end, doing this with a plugin is no different than having it built in. It is better, because it gets it off the damn screen for most people, who will not and should not need it 99% of the time.
Sounds like a lack of either minimal effort or minimal understanding of recording in general. Go get a Mac and use Garageband. It was made for you.
(And hey, I'm not knocking it. I do have a Macbook, and have used GB for sketching around with. It's not bad. Inability to export midi is probably the only really major drawback.)
If you wanna knock Ardour, say something like "it lacks MIDI functionality found in most other DAWs", which would be true. Until v3 comes out, at least.
Neither of you is correct. The parent is using a specific terms, denying broader terms. You are using a broad term, disregarding the role context plays in determining an acceptable level of specificity. There is at least one level within each definition at which a Marine is not a Soldier.
In broad terms, a Marine is a soldier. In narrower terms, as in "especially in the army" vs "a member of the United States Marine Corps" a Marine is not a Soldier.
Since this thread is in fact about the United States Marine Corps, it is reasonable for someone to demand use of the more specific term, since the subject being discussed does not apply to all that fall under the broader term. The parent simply should have used caps to make the particular level of distinction they were trying to make more clear.
Marines are not Soldiers = TRUE
Marines are not soldiers = FALSE
Parent claimed the latter, so calling it false is accurate. However the context should have made it clear that they intended the former, so... you're just being pedantic. As am I. How's that for an old jarhead? :)
Right from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: (2) marine
Function: noun
Date: 1669
1 a: the mercantile and naval shipping of a country b: seagoing ships especially in relation to nationality or class
2: one of a class of soldiers serving on shipboard or in close association with a naval force ; specifically : a member of the United States Marine Corps
3: an executive department (as in France) having charge of naval affairs
4: a marine picture : seascape
Eek. That should read "Nanda Devi", not "Nandi".
Isn't her cause of death actually unknown?
I thought HAPE was only one of few different potential causes, and one of the less likely of them. (As she hadn't shown clear symptoms of either cerebral or pulmonary edema.)
I read the most accepted likely cause was Mesenteric Thrombosis. (According to expedition doctor Andy Harvard, after consulting with Charlie Houston and other high-altitude experts.) A clot in the artery supplying blood to the membranes around the intestines.
Another theory was a heart attack. Supposedly induced by by a combination of anemia and high altitude, with the anemia brought on by gastrointestinal bleeding over the course of a few days. (She had just finished a bout of bloody diarrhea within a day or two, and had been laid up feeling weakened. She was pretty sick, and had already decided not to try the summit at that point.)
Sorry to bring any of that up, but the Unsoeld/Nandi Devi story is one of the saddest mountaineering tales I've ever heard. I always thought it even more difficult because it wasn't any of the better known high altitude illnesses like HACE or HAPE, which are more recognizable and may have prompted an immediate decision by the others to descend.
This was rated "informative"? Now THAT is wacky/scary...
I consider SRV's Little Wing to be the definitive version. Jimi wrote it as a sweet little song, SRV took it and expanded it into an instrumental blues guitar masterpiece. I think it's one of the best guitar recordings ever done, in any genre. Found it here.
:)
> I've never really been into Bjork, have only heard 2 or 3 of her songs but they have been quite varied so there probably would be a lot of her stuff that I'd like without even having to 'get used' to it
I'm more into her earlier stuff... the first three albums in particular. (Debut, Post, Homogenic.) I actually heard her for the for the first time on Dave Letterman, doing "Bachelorette" from Homogenic. I was stunned, and went and bought every album she'd done up to that point (those three) the very next day.
>When I said Axel I meant Axel Rose, who must be a tenor too
:) I myself didn't really care for the band much when I was younger, based on what few tunes I'd heard. I was a thrash kid (Metallica/Megadeth/Slayer/Anthrax/Testament/etc) and it just didn't catch me, and I didn't like the vocals either. So I understand.
:)
:p ).
:)
:)
Yep, that's who I meant too. Axl Rose. Maiden started in the mid 70's and is still putting out albums. Guns N Roses started in the mid 80's, and started to vanish after 94.
>I don't know what it is about the Iron Maiden guy's voice that ticks me off. Maybe I'll get used to it one day.
Yeah, maybe consider giving it a shot.
I first got an appreciation for it while playing in a cover band in Japan. They wanted to do a Maiden tune, and picked "The Trooper", which I'd never heard before. I learned it, and it was very fun to play, and I really liked it. Started checking 'em out again, and really liked it this time around. Vocally to me he seems similar to a broadway actor in a play, acting out/singing a story or monologue. That's how I think of it.
>Ya I was talkin about Aint Talkin Bout Love, but the first place that I actually heard that riff was in an Apollo 440 dub remix called Aint Talkin Bout Dub, it's pretty good.
Heh... I'll take your word for it. For some reason that brings to mind "The Fuck Shop" by 2 Live Crew. They sampled the opening lick, and used it in a recurring loop.
> But I do like some solos if they sound good as well as just being technically impressive
> I like the song 'Eruption' which is just pure Van Halen soloing all the way
OK, I've got some for ya...
The album Rust in Peace by Megadeth (a thrash/speed metal masterpiece) is one of the best jaw dropping guitar albums ever done, and not just with soloing. A lot of the riffing is as amazing and interesting as any good solo, and there are plenty of those to go around, too. (Songs to check out first are Lucretia, Tornado of Souls, Take No Prisoners, and Hangar 18.) Warning... Dave's vocals can be an acquired taste, too. I dig 'em. Best described as an angry sneer that manages to carry a bit of tune.
>I enjoy classical guitar, and can play stuff like that intro from Classical Gas, a bit of Angie by Davy Graham, some Eric Clapton Unplugged stuff (Tears in Heaven is great). I also started learning a guitar arrangement of The Entertainer, I should go back and re-learn/finish it (I used to be a bit jealous of my sis being able to play it on the piano, even though I'm not that into pianos
Cool. Other good metal guitar albums:
Testament (Practice What You Preach, The Gathering)
Pantera (Cowboys From Hell, Vulgar Display of Power)
Some more recent metal you might like:
Five Finger Death Punch (The Way of the Fist)
Trivium (The Crusade)
Faves of mine in non-metal genres:
Eric Clapton - Layla (non-unplugged), Crossroads, etc
Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler - Sultans of Swing, others
Stevie Ray Vaughn - Little Wing, Voodoo Chile (Hendrix covers... love Jimi, but Stevie just kills these)
ZZ Top (um... lots of it)
Oysterhead - The Grand Pecking Order (Les Claypool from Primus, Trey Anastasio from Phish, Steward Copeland from The Police)
Bjork - not exactly guitar music, but what the hell. I'm listing it anyway.
> The Fire and the Flames rhythm parts as I kinda just play the first rhythm part as fast as I can because it sounds mental, but obviously I was going too fast.
On that note, you should check out the last song on Rock Band... Green Grass & High Tides (by the Outlaws). It's a killer, and a very cool song. Starts out simple, lulling you into a false sense of "hey, this is gonna be easy".
Oh yeah... that is definitely the wrong band!
:)
Bush? Heh, heh, heh. Good one.
Machine Head is damn good thrash metal nowadays. As is Arch Enemy... but I lean more toward Machine Head in the vocal department. (Arch Enemy was actually the first band I saw that day, at the Ozzfest I saw Maiden at). Their most recent album (The Blackening) is probably my favorite metal album of the last few years. I have Doomsday Machine, but haven't heard Arch Enemy's latest yet.
If he likes metal, but with heavier singing, and cool riffs, he'd probably like Machine Head.
And maybe Testament. "The Gathering" is Chuck Billy at his best, and another all-time favorite of mine. In fact, that reminds me... I need to go out and buy their new album NOW!
Someone else mentioned Dragonforce... I was actually going to suggest that. "If you don't like girly tenor vocals, and you don't like fast "twiddly" guitars, you'll REALLY hate these guys!".
> all seem to be very long with pointless solos
:)
:)
:)
> Actually watching your video there one of the main factors is that I just don't like the guy's vocals.
OK, that's the sort of criticism/opinion I can understand and get behind, even if I don't agree.
> Axel probably came after but you know what I mean
Yep, Axl definitely came after (and went long before). Maiden predates Axl by about 10 years, and is still trucking along over 15 years since Axl last did anything.
I do know what you mean though. I actually like the vocals, as being a bit different from most metal. He's a tenor, like Plant (Led Zeppelin) Dio (Black Sabbath/Dio) Halford (Judas Priest), etc. I also give him a bit of a pass as one of the inventors of the genre to begin with. (Without Sabbath, Priest and Maiden as inspiration there might never have been a Metallica to compare them to.)
I won't argue taste, though. That's cool if it doesn't float your boat. Same goes for solos. I get what you mean by pointless. Many are. Some aren't... I consider the good ones an additional (or even "counter") melody that takes a song somewhere it wouldn't have gone without it, or via vocals alone. If I can remember it and hum/whistle along, it's probably a good one. I agree some of Maiden's aren't. But think many are.
As for the singer, the dude is also a bit of a geek. With a few exceptions, most of the lyrics are based on sci-fi books (one entire album based loosely on an Orson Scott Card novel), historical events, and old literature. (Admittedly, they sometimes they can be a bit corny.) He works as a commercial airline pilot (757) on his off-time, and flies their own jet when touring. Oddball trivia... he's also competed internationally at fencing. Weird.
> I had also recently lumped Van Halen with Iron Maiden in the same 'crazy widdly guitar solos for no reason' category. but after hearing my flatmate play them in his car and realising that the riff from "Aint Talkin Bout Dub"
Ain't Talking Bout Love?
Yeah, early VH is good stuff. Sometimes solos are an acquired taste. Just because the notes are fast and one might not be able to follow it at first, doesn't mean there isn't a point and/or direction. There's a few categories of classical music that could be categorized the same way. (Bach's fugues for example. Not to mention flamenco and other classical guitar styles. And lots of jazz.)
>Iron Maiden have a song on Guitar Hero III and it was far more simple than I expected (though still quite frantic), but I just find all the "six.. six six!" bullshit a bit much when mixed with a screamy girly singer. The actual music was okay.
Well, that tune is about a dude getting the shit scared out of him by a bad dream (stumbling across some sort of satanic cult ritual) that seemed way too real. So screaming like a girl might actually be appropriate.
As for girly... well, even if he sounds it, he doesn't look it. That bastard is in shape, too. Saw them at Ozzfest a few years ago and they basically blew everybody away. All bands, of all types, of all ages. Belting that shit out while sprinting around, climbing up stuff, jumping... it was like a damn obstacle course. Dude is in his fifties, and he made all the young metal dudes look like lifeless pansies, and of course next to him Ozzy was like a rotting zombie. Suprised the hell out of me, to be honest. The whole place was going nuts, too.
The guitar hero type games (I have rock band) are basically (very fun) rhythm trainers. And the rhythmical aspects of Maiden are all about stamina, more so than any complexity.
I've played a few Maiden covers for real on stage in my time, and I can tell you that if you're not in shape, they can cramp the hell out of your hands.
At any rate I know what you meant now, and it makes much more sense.
Cheers!
Um... I'm trying to figure out what you mean by crazy stupid stuff = Iron Maiden.
Being quite familiar with all sorts of music, metal in particular, and most certainly both Metallica and Iron Maiden, the statement doesn't make much since.
I could understand "I don't like Iron Maiden".
I could also understand "I think Iron Maiden is stupid".
But calling their material "crazy stupid stuff" makes it sound like you've never even heard them before, and you just pulled a name out of a hat.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but most (fans or not) consider Maiden to be pretty straightforward. The music more progressive than most pop, but far from overcomplicated. The vocals are very melodic, and probably closer to what one might hear in a stage musical (broadway style) than most other metal. Their stage show is impressive, but not out of the norm for a rock show. Their image is pretty much within the bounds of "rock bands" in general. (I know some folks that were scared off by their mascot Eddie and associated artwork... that were genuinely suprised when they actually listened to it.)
As far as metal goes they are one of the founders of the genre, but are actually pretty tame. Probably one of the most "accessible" of all metal bands. The term crazy just doesn't fit. I'd go so far as to attach it to Metallica long before Maiden.
There are so many bands worthy of that term... Maiden is probably the last metal band I'd describe as "crazy".
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOKaUmiRTdk
As opposed to say... Machine Head? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFACKpApNMg
(I dig 'em both, but one is definitely more "crazy" than the other.
Um... What? I don't get it.
I'd say he inspired a few Megadeth tunes as well.
Liar
Hook in Mouth
Bits of Hook in Mouth:
"A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes
A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies"
Bits of Liar:
"Make up your stories, truth's so hard to say
Brain is numb and your tongue will surely dig your grave"
"Start trouble, spread pain
Piss and venom, in your veins
Talk nasty, breathe fire
Smell rotten, you're a liar
Sweat liquor, breathe snot
Eat garbage, spit blood
Diseased, health hazard
Scum bag, filthy bastard
Greasy face, teeth decay
Hair matted, drunk all day
Abscessed, sunken veins
Rot gut, scrambled brain
Steal money, crash cars
Rob jewelry, hock guitars
Rot in hell, it's time you know
To your master, off you go
You're a liar
A fucking liar"
There were some crapfests, but it wasn't consistently as terrible as you make it sound. While you're right, they've been better recently... it wasn't all bad before. I'd say out of the 7 preceding the absolute crapfest that was nipplegate, at least 2 were pretty good, and 2 others were watchable.
FWIW, I could care less about the nipple... the show and music just plain sucked.
2003 was Shania Twain, No Doubt, and Sting. Watchable.
2002 was U2. Decent. I'd say even with Tom Petty/Rolling Stones.
2001 = crapfest (Aerosmith doing late career pap w/N Sync, Britney, Nelly, others)
2000 = crapfest (Phil Collins, Aguilera, a big orchestra, etc)
1999 was Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Stevie Wonder, others. Interesting. Watchable.
1998 was Smokey Robinson, The Temptations, others. Not my thing but not terrible.
1997 was ZZ Top, Blues Brothers, and James Brown. Pretty damn cool if you ask me.
I'd say the best bet is to keep the artist list either short and somewhat similar (like 97) or just stick to a single big name (like 2002 and 2005-2008).
I do have to say... Prince was the shit. Best halftime since 97, and one of the better ones ever.
Yep, that'd be the one. I'll be darned.
:)
:)
(Although the street between is actually 14, not w.*y... it's pretty obvious you nailed the spot. I figured my info would be enough to narrow it down, if you were indeed in the same area.
No email... but my email info here has been out of date for a long while... you'll probably get a bounce. Just fixed it now, though. Give it another go, if you like.
Whoah... I could swear you're talking about the library here.
:)
Same size town. Those same services. And a newer, bigger building is under way, about 200yds away from the current one. I wonder if you could possibly be talking about the same place.
In which case, oddly enough... I have the architectural drawings/plans for that new building right here next to me.
Not all, but some of them are damn near indestructible.
:)
Even some of the newer higher-tech ones.
I've got one of these. I could probably drive a truck over it, no prob. Not gonna try it, though.
http://www.tech21nyc.com/triac.html
The commentary on the Spinal Tap DVD is absolutely worth it.
The original cast (the band) does the whole thing entirely in character, as if they were watching an old documentary of themselves. It is hilarious, and like having an entirely new Spinal Tap movie that is nearly as good as the original.
Best commentary track ever.
The book does mention that domestication of bison has been attempted in the 19th and 20 centuries, but that success has been limited.
:)
And from what I understand, bison are not considered domesticated to this day (it looks like we may finally be successful, before too much longer.) Within the last few decades they have been increasing raised commercially (partially domesticated), but that has involved genetic mixing with regular cattle (an option unavailable before 1492). Even then, it is quite different from raising normal cattle.
They can run up to 35mph, they can jump right over standard cattle fencing. And quite frankly, they can be mean and nasty as hell.
Not to say the Auroch (cow ancestor) was a picnic to deal with. They were supposedly pretty mean, too. But obviously we figured out how to domesticate the auroch before the bison despite being familiar with both, so something about them must have proved more difficult. (Some old-world equivelents of the American bison have never been domesticated, either. European bison, cape buffalo, guar, etc.)
If we have this much trouble handling bison nowadays (with all of our experience handling other large domesticated animals, not to mention modern equipment, scientific knowledge, and genetic tampering), it doesn't surprise me that early Americans weren't able to.
There weren't really any smaller animals (non-flighty ungulates... goats, sheep, etc) for them to practice on, for one thing. Starting out your first domestication efforts/experiments on bison instead of little sheep... Sounds rather intimidating.
Eh?
That's how it reads to me, anyway.
Obviously, I'm not much of a gamer.
Not to get to much into this stuff, but some of the contradictions are easily explained away. Others aren't.
/= all plants
:)
You picked an easy one...
Plants of the field
Plants of the field = food and utility crops planted purposely by man.
Most of which in fact did not exist (in any recognizable form) until they were cultivated by man. At first unintentionally, later on purpose.
For example, the staple grains of the middle east (and elsewhere in the world) originated as wild grasses with much smaller kernels than modern or even ancient times. Selection by man of larger grained specimens for gathering as food actually played a large part in their evolution into more current forms.
An extreme example is a modern ear of corn. Early versions were tiny things, two or three inches long.
Not disputing your argument... just saying you can do better.
>It's called S/PDIF. Look it up.
:)
You mean the very common consumer version of AES/EBU? Duh.
You're missing part of the concept here... it's called a microphone. Look it up.
It's used for recording compression waves (caused by vibrating objects) present in a medium, usually air or water. It has a part that can be vibrated or moved by those waves, and converts them into an analog electrical signal... typically via magnetic induction or a voltage differential.
Slapping some converters on the tail end of that gadget doesn't make it digital any more than sticking an electronic thermometer in your butt would make you an android.
All it does is
a) make the wires shorter (millimeters or centimeters instead of meters)
b) limit the choices of converting components to what is small enough to stuff into an appropriately sized package (usually a small handheld tube of sorts).
"A" is great. "B" sucks. The greatness of "A" nowhere near overcomes the suckage introduced by "B".
>Having a mic that uses S/PDIF is just fundamentally better than using analog cables.
No it's not. At least not until best-of-class versions of all of the equipment involved in the trip from soundwave to a digital signal are all available in a capsule the size of a thumb, and can actually fit in a microphone. It may come, but I wouldn't hold your breath for it.
Until then you are better off with a short (as possible) run of good quality balanced and shielded cable. Plug said cable into the best preamp and best ADC you can get your hands on. Now you have digital that doesn't suck.
At that point why would you want just simple S/PDIF output anyway? It'd be silly to limit your choices of digital transfer to a single protocol or connection type. Why not ADAT Lightpipe, or MADI? Or whatever?
> Obviously, if you combine a great interface with crappy components you can still end up worse off
Aye... you came close to enlightenment there.
> but all other things being equal, an S/PDIF microphone is simply superior to analog mics.
And then lost it.
First, all other things aren't equal.
Second and most importantly, the statement contradicts itself when measured against reality. An S/PDIF microphone cannot be simply superior to an analog mic, because an S/PDIF microphone IS an analog mic.
You may be right about some stretches of the trip, but saying you'll see NOTHING driving up to Alaska through Canada is absolutely false.
:)
Sure, there's not a lot of man-made stuff. And you have to stop at every single gas station for large stretches because they ARE that far apart (or more).
But the AlCan was without question the most kickass scenic roadtrip I've been on yet, and I've been on a few. Mountains, glaciers, forests, rivers, canyons/cliffs, lakes... you name it.
Not to mention exciting if the weather turns ugly. Large trucks have the right-of-way simply because they are bigger than you, and there is nobody else around to witness anything. So if you are nervously driving down a steep grade on a tight curvy stretch of no-shoulder 2-lane pavement with 2 inches of ice on it during a minor snowstorm while trying to avoid sliding into the tiny concrete barrier that probably won't save you from falling 1000ft or so down the gaping chasm on your immediate right (the passenger gets a lovely view straight down) and you encounter a truck coming uphill from the other direction... try, just try to remain completely calm! (How's that for a run-on?) And prepare to get the fuck outta the way, cuz they will cut the corners and drive right down the middle as close to straight as they can get, lanes and little cars be damned.
Not exactly naptime!
No, unless one lacks all appreciation of natural wonder, I don't think they will be sleeping any more than normal. If you have a difficult time staying awake in the absence of bustling civilization, you might even fail to reach your destination in one piece.
I think you might have the driving time estimates messed up a bit, too. I've actually driven a majority of the Florida to Alaska route you describe, in two separate trips. (SW Georgia to Oregon, and Oregon to Wasilla Alaska.) I remember the Alaska bit taking at least as long or longer than the other despite the shorter distance (2950 vs 2500 miles). It is simply slower going than the Interstate freeways down here. (Some parts had whoop-de-doos, or gravel, and so on.) I decided to take a look at Google Maps out of curiosity.
This is assuming 10 hours or so per driving days, which is probably unrealistic for this long of a trip without splitting driving duties with a partner or two.
Miami to Seattle = 3360 miles, 49 hrs = 5 days
Seattle to Tok AK = 1941 miles, 38 hrs = 4 days
Now, for crossing Alaska. There is no road to the Bering Strait, so have to figure Tok to Fairbanks, then a simple (not very accurate) measurement to Nome. Tok to Fairbanks is 200 miles/3.5 hours. A straight shot (if even possible) to Nome looks like would come out around 500 miles at least, likely more. Sticking with Google's optimistic time estimates, that'd be maybe 9 hours. Would probably be getting tired by this time, so wouldn't want to try it in a single day. So...
Tok to Nome, AK = 700 miles, 12.5 hrs, = 2 short days
Now, adjusting these numbers to your given timescale (FL to WA in 4 days) requires a 12 hour driving day. Adjusting the others to match we get:
Miami to Seattle = 4 days
Seattle to Tok AK = 3 days
Tok to Nome AK = 1 day
My point is simply that the stretch between WA and AK takes longer than you might think. It may be shorter, but it is slower and will not take only half the time crossing the US does.
As for crossing Alaska, you can't even reasonably do it right now in a car. But if a real cross-country road were to be built I wouldn't be suprised if it were up to twice as long as my estimate, which would stretch a drive to 2 days. But not 3 or 4. That'd have to be one hell of a crooked road.
So... while your 6 day super-speed estimate out in the barren wilderness might not be too far off, but switch the legs around. Going north is the part that would be 3 or 4 days, while crossing Alaska would be more like 2. And it wouldn't be nearly as boring as you think. Can't speak for the Asia