I worked for a charter airline, and we were approached by someone wanting to do something like this... probably 1997ish. They wanted to take some of our cargo planes, slap some FedEx PeoplePaks in them, and have them fly these sorts of flights during the day (when cargo planes are normally idle).
The scary thing is that most cargo planes are cargo planes because they're too freakin' OLD for sane passengers to fly in.
Now, okay, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I can't imagine taking those creaky old (many older than I am; see sig) birds and doing *anything* weird with them. The whole time I was in freefall, I'd be thinking, "okay, is this going to stop, or did the wings fall off?"
Okay, so the things would be all but unloaded, compared to hauling cargo, but still... seems like the stresses would be *different*. (Their FAQ doesn't exactly answer this straightforwardly, either.)
Hmm. Nowhere on their website am I finding the tail number for their bird. Could be one of our 727-200's, but the airline I worked for hasn't updated its website since, well, about the time I left in 1998. Oh, wait. Nope, looks like it's Amerijet N994AJ.
Heh. The reason the Zero-G website only shows the left side of the plane is because the right side is a Diet Rite ad.
Kind of like someone breaking into the house, leaving something obnoxious under the fridge that starts smelling bad really gradually over a period of few months.
You mean inside the curtain rods, so when they finally give up and move out of the house the smell goes with them.
(And it's supposed to be a vengeful, soon-to-be-ex wife, not a break-in. But you get the idea.)
After owning a cat for several years, I can definitely say that I'm a dog person
Heh. I have one of each (down from a pair of each). I'm a general-purpose animal person, I guess.
How would I go about finding a specific dog with a good parentage?
If you have a particular breed in mind, and can't afford a good breeder (look for one that shows, and preferably not just conformance), go to a good breed rescue, and get a young adult dog - old enough that its personality has developed, and hopefully its previous owners or its foster home has given it some housebreaking, etc.
If you can afford the food bill, and have a decent-sized house, you probably want a fairly large breed that won't be intimidated by kids. Someone mentioned Great Danes, and you'll want to watch for health problems (a good Dane rescue will be aware of that), but they're a good breed, and large breeds in general are often abandoned for size issues than behavior problems. Mastiffs are good, too, but they're *seriously* big, and then there's the drool issue. I'm not breed-particular, myself (the GSDish we have now was a stray), so I'd go with a mixed breed just to leave the purebreds for people who only want the one type.
And before you get a dog, read "How to Childproof Your Dog," too. Good book. I wish we'd gotten it earlier (there are a lot of things to do with your dog to better prepare it for children, and we didn't get it until our son was starting to interact with her), but fortunately it worked out well.
Anybody have any recommendations in regards to breeds of dogs that are insanely protective of the family and *won't* attack Junior if the dog's ears are being pulled?
There are none. Seriously.
Some breeds are better than others, of course, but generally the ones that are family-protective also require a lot of time to *bond* with the family... which is to say, if you wanted that much "dog time" you'd probably already have a dog. Dogs who spend most of their time in the backyard learn to protect the backyard... sometimes from the "strangers" who live in the house.
And generally when a dog attacks a kid, it's not got anything to do with the breed, but rather the species. We've bred a lot of traits into dogs, but they do still have canine instincts, and the sweetest dog in the world can still surprise you with possession aggression ("I'm so protective of this child I'll kill it myself before I let anyone else get to it") or prey drive (watch *any* dog when a kid - or adult! - runs away from it... that "play" behavior is hunting practice, and it's very easy for a dog to get carried away) other things like that that come as a complete shock to people who've gotten used to anthropomorphizing their dog's behavior. They're domesticated, but they're not just humans with arrested development.
Now, before I start sounding like a PETA kook, let me point out that I say all this as the owner of an apparent German Shepherd, who is completely devoted to the family and especially our four-year-old son (our only child). She also barks like a demon if anybody comes to the door and I don't let them in or otherwise make it clear (to a doggy viewpoint) that they're welcome. But that was sheer luck... you don't reliably find GSDs like that without spending a fortune on a good breeder (ours is backyard-bred at best, and more likely a mixed-breed accident, and while her temperament is great we spend a small fortune treating her for hip dysplasia, a genetic defect), and the same is true in nearly every other breed out there.
I can't even begin to imagine what your son was thinking
Actually, I don't think the kids were really aware of it... the teachers put their papers in their backpacks, and then told the parents at the door that there were papers to look at.
I guess it wouldn't bother me quite so much if it weren't a third-party for-profit business tied into it all. I mean, I remember selling band candy (from, I doubt not, a for-profit company) as a kid, and bake sales, and whatnot, but it was all for extra-curricular activities.
Schools are not about teaching. They are about money.
My four-year-old went to his first day of pre-kindergarten (public school) last Thursday. He brought home papers from the craft he did, an invitation to a parent-teacher function... and a Red Wheel cookie dough sales form. Four years old, his first day of school, and already they want him to be a little salesman so they can have field trips and incentives.
And the fact that I choose not to tell you is also none of your business.
I tend to disagree. I figure you can conceal anything you want, all you want... up until the point you call me. After that, I figure I have the right to be on an even footing. You've got *my* phone number, after all, why should I not have yours? If you want to display NO CALLER ID, I can choose not to receive your call. I don't think you have the moral right to deceive me in order to get me to listen to you.
In my particular case, the way I handled it was to initially give the "wrong" maiden name
The way I've handled it was to look the number up in the phone book. Isn't going to work very well with larger banks, though.
Maybe the banks will eventually have to start leaving messages like "Call me back at blah blah, and for confirmation purposes the PIN at the bottom of this month's bill is yada."
making life a lot harder for law enforcement agencies
I'd actually like to hear from someone with more knowledge of this detail, because (as I said on the last article about this) as I understand it the phone company's record of the caller is independent of the caller-ID... if that's so, it's going to make life only a *little* harder for law enforcement. Even without this company, I'd expect they'd still have to subpoena phone company records to have court-admissible evidence.
But my knowledge is all secondhand, and somewhat outdated.
Ah. Yes, I agree completely. I thought we were talking about injuring property, not people.
Yes and no. We *are* talking about injuring property, in a manner that will indirectly injure people, because the property is the means by which the owner earns his livelihood.
I think our difference of opinion arises from the fact that you believe in the concept of "property rights," whereas I do not.
I'm assuming the baseline for this debate is the current real world, where property rights exist whether you believe in them or not... the morality might well change in a society without property rights, but that's a whole different discussion.
I think property rights are pretty inevitable, given human nature. Now, on the flip side, I'd rather see a *cultural* change in property *attitudes*. Human greed causes, IMHO, socialism and communism to fail pretty much from get-go... but ultimately, they're causing capitalism to fail, too (can you say "runaway consumer debt," boys and girls?) I don't, however, think that can be solved by government, but rather by culture. At its most basic, I don't want the government to take away my property, because I want the freedom to *give* it away.
That is to say, I think we need to change the selfishness of our culture, but I don't think abolishing property rights will do that. The opposite, in fact.
Most New Yorkers will probably not stop buying coffee at their favorite coffee shop simply because it has "STOP BUSH" written on it.
That may be cultural assumptions here. I live in a Midwestern city, where graffiti is exceptionally rare (and tends toward the anti-Semitic when it does appear). If a coffee shop left graffiti of any kind on its walls, I think it's safe to say it'd lose quite a bit of business. ("OMG gang hangout OMG OMG OMG!!1!onehundredandeleven!!")
Disrespect for property rights is common among college students because they don't own much property.
I was thinking more along the lines of "college students haven't learned that ideals have to be compromised for them to function in the real world." (Hmm, did that sound jaded? Maybe I should add "jaded" to my sig. Maybe "middle-aged," even if it's only early middle age, implies that already, I dunno.)
What I am saying is, it's moral, not legal, not within his rights, but nonetheless moral, to deface property in order to spread an important, valid, and correct message.
No, I don't think it's moral. I don't think you can injure third parties to spread your message and call it moral.
I say what about the thousands of people who have been killed as a direct result of decisions made by Bush?
Given that NYC's mostly Dem, I'd say it's probably *not* that poor shopkeeper's fault.
doesn't human life trump property?
That's a false dichotomy, though.
I'm curious, and not sure how to ask without giving offense, but: are you a college student?
I think writing on things is a minor nuisance at worst.
You think? What about the poor shopkeeper in NY who gets down-with-Bush slogans written all over his store in permanent marker (since, unless I've gotten threads crossed, that was the specific discussion)? And next week it's down-with-RIAA slogans. And next week... How long before somebody's freedom of speech puts him out of business, because, as you claim, it's more valuable than his property?
I think that's the property owner's decision to make... your ideals don't get to trump his.
I thought there was a clause that prohibits mucking around with phone tech like this.
While you might run into fraud or other laws, I'm not sure it would necessarily bother any wiretapping statutes. Spoofing caller-ID is different from actually changing what the *phone company* sees as the originating number, so if they're not doing that, they're probably okay. Well, except for the fraud bit, which can get pretty serious, but that would likely be the responsibility of the person using the service.
I'm not saying writing on other people's property should be legal. I'm saying that it should be illegal, and people should be arrested for it. However, I think that using nonviolent illegal means to express your opinion is a perfectly legitimate form of civil disobedience.
The fact is that he's kept in custody for hours without being told why, nor being charged for anything.
While I can't say as I've actually experienced it, from secondhand stories (I've had some employees who led colorful lives...) I was given to understand this isn't entirely unusual.
I have a 486 keychain (somewhere), but it's a 486 embedded in clear acrylic, no holes drilled in the chip, no socket.
In fact, I used to have a whole box of "broken but pretty components," including a nifty little white IC with gold legs. No idea where it went, unfortunately, as it's been about fifteen years.
Of these, how many people are actually hooking the sound up to the theater system?
If it's at all like the theater our church used to meet in, probably not very many. We brought in our own speakers, mounted them up behind the screens, and ran all our own cabling, just because the theater sound system was so proprietary.
I don't know if this is only in the tiny trashy independent theaters (I say "used to meet in" because it went bankrupt, to no one's surprise), or if all sound systems are like this, though. IANASoundTech.
Ever wonder why not a single theater tries to compete on the price of concessions?
Some do, actually. But it's usually either taking a loss trying to starve out the competition, or as a "We'll gouge you for SLIGHTLY LESS than other theaters do!" sort of campaign.
Agreed. Soon as I got to junior high (or rather, to sixth grade in the junior-high building), I went off and read Catcher in the Rye and Brave New World and pretty much everything else that they had that was on banned lists anywhere. Mostly, I couldn't figure out why they would be banned; I could certainly have pointed out plenty of, as you say, dull and poorly written stories that hadn't attracted attention but were considerably worse.
(Of course, my curiosity just led to boredom in high school when we were *assigned* Catcher in the Rye and a couple other books I'd already read...)
It's not a "banned" list, it's a "challenged" list
Yeah, I figured that out from some of the ancillary links other people posted. Firefox eventually gave up on the actual article. Serves me right, actually visiting Slashdot instead of waiting for it to show up in Bloglines (when the initial Slashdotting is generally tapering off).
Perhaps someone who's read the article (it's loading in another tab, but I'm not holding my breath) can say for sure, but my best guess would be that the ban list must include books that are not "banned" so much as "excluded by policy," perhaps in this case because "Every time we buy a Waldo book, some smart aleck has to go through and circle Waldo on each page, so we should stop wasting our money on them."
And who wouldn't want to listen in on a confessional booth every now and then? Sure you'll never know who made what search, but it's a peek inside someone's psyche that you would never get the chance to see otherwise. Mental voyeurism.
You get some of that, on a sufficiently eclectic site, just grepping through the referers [sic] in the web log (no, not that kind of web log, the real kind).
Google's not the best one for that, though. Ask.com (Ask Jeeves) is better, because people apparently think the thing is Eliza and have conversations with it.
I did get one goodie from Google: "So maybe it's not exactly 'inspiration' per se, probably more like boredom, but i'm back! yippie!" I'm not sure if they got the Google and IM windows mixed up or what.
I at one point started documenting them, with commentaries, but I haven't updated it in awhile:
What do you do if you think someone is trying to kill you? WHAT ARE THE CORRECT CUTTING TORCH SETTINGS hey man expensive looking boots how do i cook snake "upgrade to Word for OS X"
The scary thing is that all those searches found my site.
No belt-buckle searches have appeared yet, to the best of my knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
They're just stalling while they reprint them without the proportional font and superscripts.
I worked for a charter airline, and we were approached by someone wanting to do something like this... probably 1997ish. They wanted to take some of our cargo planes, slap some FedEx PeoplePaks in them, and have them fly these sorts of flights during the day (when cargo planes are normally idle).
The scary thing is that most cargo planes are cargo planes because they're too freakin' OLD for sane passengers to fly in.
Now, okay, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I can't imagine taking those creaky old (many older than I am; see sig) birds and doing *anything* weird with them. The whole time I was in freefall, I'd be thinking, "okay, is this going to stop, or did the wings fall off?"
Okay, so the things would be all but unloaded, compared to hauling cargo, but still... seems like the stresses would be *different*. (Their FAQ doesn't exactly answer this straightforwardly, either.)
Hmm. Nowhere on their website am I finding the tail number for their bird. Could be one of our 727-200's, but the airline I worked for hasn't updated its website since, well, about the time I left in 1998. Oh, wait. Nope, looks like it's Amerijet N994AJ.
Heh. The reason the Zero-G website only shows the left side of the plane is because the right side is a Diet Rite ad.
Kind of like someone breaking into the house, leaving something obnoxious under the fridge that starts smelling bad really gradually over a period of few months.
You mean inside the curtain rods, so when they finally give up and move out of the house the smell goes with them.
(And it's supposed to be a vengeful, soon-to-be-ex wife, not a break-in. But you get the idea.)
After owning a cat for several years, I can definitely say that I'm a dog person
Heh. I have one of each (down from a pair of each). I'm a general-purpose animal person, I guess.
How would I go about finding a specific dog with a good parentage?
If you have a particular breed in mind, and can't afford a good breeder (look for one that shows, and preferably not just conformance), go to a good breed rescue, and get a young adult dog - old enough that its personality has developed, and hopefully its previous owners or its foster home has given it some housebreaking, etc.
If you can afford the food bill, and have a decent-sized house, you probably want a fairly large breed that won't be intimidated by kids. Someone mentioned Great Danes, and you'll want to watch for health problems (a good Dane rescue will be aware of that), but they're a good breed, and large breeds in general are often abandoned for size issues than behavior problems. Mastiffs are good, too, but they're *seriously* big, and then there's the drool issue. I'm not breed-particular, myself (the GSDish we have now was a stray), so I'd go with a mixed breed just to leave the purebreds for people who only want the one type.
And before you get a dog, read "How to Childproof Your Dog," too. Good book. I wish we'd gotten it earlier (there are a lot of things to do with your dog to better prepare it for children, and we didn't get it until our son was starting to interact with her), but fortunately it worked out well.
Anybody have any recommendations in regards to breeds of dogs that are insanely protective of the family and *won't* attack Junior if the dog's ears are being pulled?
There are none. Seriously.
Some breeds are better than others, of course, but generally the ones that are family-protective also require a lot of time to *bond* with the family... which is to say, if you wanted that much "dog time" you'd probably already have a dog. Dogs who spend most of their time in the backyard learn to protect the backyard... sometimes from the "strangers" who live in the house.
And generally when a dog attacks a kid, it's not got anything to do with the breed, but rather the species. We've bred a lot of traits into dogs, but they do still have canine instincts, and the sweetest dog in the world can still surprise you with possession aggression ("I'm so protective of this child I'll kill it myself before I let anyone else get to it") or prey drive (watch *any* dog when a kid - or adult! - runs away from it... that "play" behavior is hunting practice, and it's very easy for a dog to get carried away) other things like that that come as a complete shock to people who've gotten used to anthropomorphizing their dog's behavior. They're domesticated, but they're not just humans with arrested development.
Now, before I start sounding like a PETA kook, let me point out that I say all this as the owner of an apparent German Shepherd, who is completely devoted to the family and especially our four-year-old son (our only child). She also barks like a demon if anybody comes to the door and I don't let them in or otherwise make it clear (to a doggy viewpoint) that they're welcome. But that was sheer luck... you don't reliably find GSDs like that without spending a fortune on a good breeder (ours is backyard-bred at best, and more likely a mixed-breed accident, and while her temperament is great we spend a small fortune treating her for hip dysplasia, a genetic defect), and the same is true in nearly every other breed out there.
I can't even begin to imagine what your son was thinking
Actually, I don't think the kids were really aware of it... the teachers put their papers in their backpacks, and then told the parents at the door that there were papers to look at.
I guess it wouldn't bother me quite so much if it weren't a third-party for-profit business tied into it all. I mean, I remember selling band candy (from, I doubt not, a for-profit company) as a kid, and bake sales, and whatnot, but it was all for extra-curricular activities.
Schools are not about teaching. They are about money.
My four-year-old went to his first day of pre-kindergarten (public school) last Thursday. He brought home papers from the craft he did, an invitation to a parent-teacher function... and a Red Wheel cookie dough sales form. Four years old, his first day of school, and already they want him to be a little salesman so they can have field trips and incentives.
Furrfu.
And the fact that I choose not to tell you is also none of your business.
I tend to disagree. I figure you can conceal anything you want, all you want... up until the point you call me. After that, I figure I have the right to be on an even footing. You've got *my* phone number, after all, why should I not have yours? If you want to display NO CALLER ID, I can choose not to receive your call. I don't think you have the moral right to deceive me in order to get me to listen to you.
In my particular case, the way I handled it was to initially give the "wrong" maiden name
The way I've handled it was to look the number up in the phone book. Isn't going to work very well with larger banks, though.
Maybe the banks will eventually have to start leaving messages like "Call me back at blah blah, and for confirmation purposes the PIN at the bottom of this month's bill is yada."
making life a lot harder for law enforcement agencies
I'd actually like to hear from someone with more knowledge of this detail, because (as I said on the last article about this) as I understand it the phone company's record of the caller is independent of the caller-ID... if that's so, it's going to make life only a *little* harder for law enforcement. Even without this company, I'd expect they'd still have to subpoena phone company records to have court-admissible evidence.
But my knowledge is all secondhand, and somewhat outdated.
Ah. Yes, I agree completely. I thought we were talking about injuring property, not people.
Yes and no. We *are* talking about injuring property, in a manner that will indirectly injure people, because the property is the means by which the owner earns his livelihood.
I think our difference of opinion arises from the fact that you believe in the concept of "property rights," whereas I do not.
I'm assuming the baseline for this debate is the current real world, where property rights exist whether you believe in them or not... the morality might well change in a society without property rights, but that's a whole different discussion.
I think property rights are pretty inevitable, given human nature. Now, on the flip side, I'd rather see a *cultural* change in property *attitudes*. Human greed causes, IMHO, socialism and communism to fail pretty much from get-go... but ultimately, they're causing capitalism to fail, too (can you say "runaway consumer debt," boys and girls?) I don't, however, think that can be solved by government, but rather by culture. At its most basic, I don't want the government to take away my property, because I want the freedom to *give* it away.
That is to say, I think we need to change the selfishness of our culture, but I don't think abolishing property rights will do that. The opposite, in fact.
Most New Yorkers will probably not stop buying coffee at their favorite coffee shop simply because it has "STOP BUSH" written on it.
That may be cultural assumptions here. I live in a Midwestern city, where graffiti is exceptionally rare (and tends toward the anti-Semitic when it does appear). If a coffee shop left graffiti of any kind on its walls, I think it's safe to say it'd lose quite a bit of business. ("OMG gang hangout OMG OMG OMG!!1!onehundredandeleven!!")
Disrespect for property rights is common among college students because they don't own much property.
I was thinking more along the lines of "college students haven't learned that ideals have to be compromised for them to function in the real world." (Hmm, did that sound jaded? Maybe I should add "jaded" to my sig. Maybe "middle-aged," even if it's only early middle age, implies that already, I dunno.)
What I am saying is, it's moral, not legal, not within his rights, but nonetheless moral, to deface property in order to spread an important, valid, and correct message.
No, I don't think it's moral. I don't think you can injure third parties to spread your message and call it moral.
I say what about the thousands of people who have been killed as a direct result of decisions made by Bush?
Given that NYC's mostly Dem, I'd say it's probably *not* that poor shopkeeper's fault.
doesn't human life trump property?
That's a false dichotomy, though.
I'm curious, and not sure how to ask without giving offense, but: are you a college student?
I think writing on things is a minor nuisance at worst.
You think? What about the poor shopkeeper in NY who gets down-with-Bush slogans written all over his store in permanent marker (since, unless I've gotten threads crossed, that was the specific discussion)? And next week it's down-with-RIAA slogans. And next week... How long before somebody's freedom of speech puts him out of business, because, as you claim, it's more valuable than his property?
I think that's the property owner's decision to make... your ideals don't get to trump his.
I thought there was a clause that prohibits mucking around with phone tech like this.
While you might run into fraud or other laws, I'm not sure it would necessarily bother any wiretapping statutes. Spoofing caller-ID is different from actually changing what the *phone company* sees as the originating number, so if they're not doing that, they're probably okay. Well, except for the fraud bit, which can get pretty serious, but that would likely be the responsibility of the person using the service.
Because the speech itself is more important than the property it's written on.
That's wildly idealistic. And, as a result, coldly cruel.
I'm not saying writing on other people's property should be legal. I'm saying that it should be illegal, and people should be arrested for it. However, I think that using nonviolent illegal means to express your opinion is a perfectly legitimate form of civil disobedience.
At the cost of damage to other people's property?
I don't understand why that should be legitimate.
The fact is that he's kept in custody for hours without being told why, nor being charged for anything.
While I can't say as I've actually experienced it, from secondhand stories (I've had some employees who led colorful lives...) I was given to understand this isn't entirely unusual.
I have a 486 keychain (somewhere), but it's a 486 embedded in clear acrylic, no holes drilled in the chip, no socket.
In fact, I used to have a whole box of "broken but pretty components," including a nifty little white IC with gold legs. No idea where it went, unfortunately, as it's been about fifteen years.
The original, classic broken computer mod ... is an AT-case litterbox, not a Mac fishtank.
(The former is just as popular with Mac users, though.)
Of these, how many people are actually hooking the sound up to the theater system?
If it's at all like the theater our church used to meet in, probably not very many. We brought in our own speakers, mounted them up behind the screens, and ran all our own cabling, just because the theater sound system was so proprietary.
I don't know if this is only in the tiny trashy independent theaters (I say "used to meet in" because it went bankrupt, to no one's surprise), or if all sound systems are like this, though. IANASoundTech.
Ever wonder why not a single theater tries to compete on the price of concessions?
Some do, actually. But it's usually either taking a loss trying to starve out the competition, or as a "We'll gouge you for SLIGHTLY LESS than other theaters do!" sort of campaign.
Agreed. Soon as I got to junior high (or rather, to sixth grade in the junior-high building), I went off and read Catcher in the Rye and Brave New World and pretty much everything else that they had that was on banned lists anywhere. Mostly, I couldn't figure out why they would be banned; I could certainly have pointed out plenty of, as you say, dull and poorly written stories that hadn't attracted attention but were considerably worse.
(Of course, my curiosity just led to boredom in high school when we were *assigned* Catcher in the Rye and a couple other books I'd already read...)
It's not a "banned" list, it's a "challenged" list
Yeah, I figured that out from some of the ancillary links other people posted. Firefox eventually gave up on the actual article. Serves me right, actually visiting Slashdot instead of waiting for it to show up in Bloglines (when the initial Slashdotting is generally tapering off).
Perhaps someone who's read the article (it's loading in another tab, but I'm not holding my breath) can say for sure, but my best guess would be that the ban list must include books that are not "banned" so much as "excluded by policy," perhaps in this case because "Every time we buy a Waldo book, some smart aleck has to go through and circle Waldo on each page, so we should stop wasting our money on them."
Or some such.
It's *still* loading, though.
And who wouldn't want to listen in on a confessional booth every now and then? Sure you'll never know who made what search, but it's a peek inside someone's psyche that you would never get the chance to see otherwise. Mental voyeurism.
a in /SillySearches
You get some of that, on a sufficiently eclectic site, just grepping through the referers [sic] in the web log (no, not that kind of web log, the real kind).
Google's not the best one for that, though. Ask.com (Ask Jeeves) is better, because people apparently think the thing is Eliza and have conversations with it.
I did get one goodie from Google: "So maybe it's not exactly 'inspiration' per se, probably more like boredom, but i'm back! yippie!" I'm not sure if they got the Google and IM windows mixed up or what.
I at one point started documenting them, with commentaries, but I haven't updated it in awhile:
http://www.phoenyx.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/M
What do you do if you think someone is trying to kill you?
WHAT ARE THE CORRECT CUTTING TORCH SETTINGS
hey man expensive looking boots
how do i cook snake
"upgrade to Word for OS X"
The scary thing is that all those searches found my site.
No belt-buckle searches have appeared yet, to the best of my knowledge.