I saw the original voice over version when I was a kid, Perhaps I was a low-brow 7 year old but I always liked the original version. I always heard the dry out of place narration as a sort of a debriefing or testimony. Not really the dramatic telling of a story but the filing of a police report (those things never read like literature).
I can understand why the narration wasn't intended, as in the Directors cut and the Final cut the story is told well enough. The spoon feeding isn't necessary.
I am delighted to hear that the Final cut DVD also contains one of the original releases, IMHO these are the two best versions, and two very different versions.
I saw the final cut yesterday, the line works, didn't feel sanitized, it sort of made the point of Roy meeting his creator.
As for making the movie all safe and PC family fun, that certainly didn't happen. the final cut has all the violence and gore of any of the previous versions, and it was in the theater as a "Not Rated" film.
I have a better solution.
Every voting machine should print out a receipt for the voter with a unique number printed on the receipt that is also associated with the votes cast and retained on the storage card. The vote number can be a combination of the serial number of the voting machine coupled with the date and a simple sequence number (or a function of the sequence number)
The votes collected should then be hosted in an online database that can be searched by the receipt number. This would allow any voter to review the vote cast and ensure that what was received on the receipt is the same as what was officially cast.
Anyone skeptical of the e-voting method would obviously jump right on this chance to participate in this kind of scrutiny. More importantly, any report of a discrepancy would result in a flood of voters checking on their cast votes.
Anyone trying to tamper could not know who will check to confirm their vote, and would have to allow every cast vote to be retained as cast. Solid verifiable evidence of widespread tampering would either result in demand for a revote, possibly using a different method like a paper ballot , or would result in civil uprising.
To prevent ballot stuffing, the people working the election booths would be required to count the number of voters that use each machine and enter that number with the date and the machine number. This number would be entered independently in the online database (perhaps through a secure login). From the searchable database, the number of votes for any given machine could be calculated from the recorded vote ID numbers and compared to the independent count for the date. Third party oversight could be as simple as allowing people to watch a machine from a distance and count the number of voters that step in the booth. Because all of this information would be made immediately available to everyone, the number of eyes scrutinizing the data would make it difficult to screw with an election with any significance.
Wikipedia should be viewed as a men's room wall, people write stuff on the wall, some is useful, some isn't, the editors should be viewed as the janitors that mostly clean off the piss stains, I wouldn't hold account the owner of the men's room, or the janitors for not cleaning something embarrassing or plain wrong, unless it has been pointed out to be removed or fixed and they refused to correct the info.
The individual that used wiki as a place to air somebody else's laundry should be the one held accountable. If the accounts to edit can be registered anonymously, then that should probably be changed. It might cut down on the vandalism if everything posted could be linked to an actual person.
Thats easy, Most high performance wings, those used for aerobatic and fighter planes produce close to neutral lift (these wings are close to symmetric), the amount of lift is then mostly attributed to speed and the angle of attack. by inverting the aircraft and pushing forward on the controls, the bottom of the wing will function as the top and lift will be generated.
Low speed or heavy lift wings would be difficult to use inverted, most would only work during a maneuver such as a barrel roll where a positive g is utilized throughout the maneuver, the plane is actually lifting through the roll, still lifting up(toward the ground)while inverted.
Since you pulled rank, I will do the same,
I only have a bachelors in geology, and currently working on a masters in hydrogeology. I was raised by a military instructor pilot, that also had 20+ years as a commercial airline pilot, and I grew up in the air capital of the world.
When I was growing up and I asked what makes an airplane fly, I was started in a multi year discourse into aerodynamics.
With discussion of bernouli, there was discussion of wingtip vortices, the purpose of wing fences seen on early mig fighters. The turbulence (minor) of jetwash and prop wash and the principals of supersonic flight.
There was never any mention of "downwash" from the air being pushed down to keep an airplane in the air.
If a wing passed through the air and left it completely undisturbed, as is usually drawn in popular science articles on aerodynamics, the wing would generate no lift. How could it? If no force has been exerted on the air, no force can be exerted on the plane, and the only force acting on it is gravity. If a symmetrical object is moved through the air, there will be equal displacement on each side, and no lift will be generated. A wing is asymmetric, the air traveling underneath experiences little disturbance, the air displaced around the top becomes more spread out, spreading out a gas decreases the temperature and pressure, the differential pressure between lesser displaced air beneath the wing and the more displaced air above the wing generates lift. Again, the air beneath the wing tries to fill the void created above the wing.
To say that the air that lifts an airplane is pushing down is ignoring the concepts of pressure gradients and infinity. There is a pressure gradient, the air trying to go from high pressure to low pressure is exerting force in all directions, but it is a gas, not an orderly stack of connected molecules (press on the top one and the same force is felt on the bottom), the force is dispersed in infinite conditions.
What I am really trying to get at, is that the real action that makes a plane fly does not happen under it pushing down on the air beneath it, but it happens above the wing. An Airplane flies because it is sucked off the ground.
Aircraft don't fly by pushing down on a bunch of air until they leave the ground.
Forward motion (generated by thrust) is converted to lift. Lift is the result of air flow being split by the airfoil (wing). as the air travels over the top of the airfoil it must travel a greater distance than the air that flows beneath. The spreading of the air as it travels over the top generates a vacuum. the air flowing beneath the airfoil tries to push up to fill the partial void. This generates lift.
Jetwash and wake turbulence are behind the aircraft.
Vortexes created by the wings (the most dangerous part of wake turbulence) are created by the air trying to go around the end of the wing to get to the top, Swept wings amplify this situation as not all of the air flows over the wing parallel to the fuselage, instead it sort of slides off toward the wingtip, a vortex propagates from the wingtip trailing behind the aircraft.
I can just see it, I'm working on some document and the text "TPS Report" shows up. Then 2/3rds of the script for office space is suddenly cluttering the rest of the document.
I'm not sure I want all of my weird random thoughts actually materializing as I type. Oooo Shiney
It would get me fired. Especially if I'm working on something related to my degree (geology), Cleavage, Dike, fold and thrust, my pornographic memory does not always conjure up the safe and sane meaning first.
"Engineering research facilities that interview candidates based only on how many papers they have had published also risk adding to the problem, according to Berners-Lee, because of an apparent in-built bias against women"
This idea of interview based only on the number of papers published is more likely to overlook qualified and talented people, not from some "gender bias" that sees fewer women getting published, but because it creates a bias that seeks quantity over quality.
Just because some hack spun a whole bunch of papers off one good idea, he/she is going to get an interview, yet someone that has had numerous and significantly profound ideas but only published a handful of papers that covered the ideas will not get noticed. This is independent of gender.
This Bike would probably still be accelerating at the end of a quarter mile. Acceleration of a vehicle is nonlinear partially due to aerodynamic drag. Aerodynamic drag increases as a power function and thus acceleration vs time will form a curve, even if the motor output is linear or constant.
Had the levees not failed after the hurricane, there would be more national awareness of the more significant damage to the east of New Orleans.
The fact that people outside of the damaged area still talk about Katrina is really due to an Engineering/Maintenence failure.
If it were not for the levees, Katrina would have dropped from public discussion just like Cindy, Dennis, Rita, and Wilma (The other Hurricanes that made US Landfall in the 2005 Season).
"Do you have any particular reason for believing increased mass (in a car with the same cross-sectional area) reduces fuel economy?"
If not, you should. While aerodynamic drag on a car is the most significant factor on fuel economy and is of increasing importance with speed, as Drag is a power function, there are other factors to consider.
The mass of a car has an effect acceleration and drag. Drag is through the tires, similar to the effect of changing tire pressure. The effect on acceleration comes from the amount of energy it takes to accelerate from a stop or increase speed. It is a function of rolling resistance and inertia.
Any NASCAR fan knows this, and should be able to tell you that a car with a nearly empty gas tank is faster (by a small margin) than a car with a full tank, because it weighs less.
You might be able to eek out a few extra miles from every tank of gas by simply reducing the amount of junk in your trunk.
Does that mean Ralph Richardson (The Supreme Being) and a bunch of little people that built the world are going to pick up all the AOL disks and put them into a giant rubbish bin?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they want to play a wicked fast game of pong...
I saw the original voice over version when I was a kid, Perhaps I was a low-brow 7 year old but I always liked the original version. I always heard the dry out of place narration as a sort of a debriefing or testimony. Not really the dramatic telling of a story but the filing of a police report (those things never read like literature).
I can understand why the narration wasn't intended, as in the Directors cut and the Final cut the story is told well enough. The spoon feeding isn't necessary.
I am delighted to hear that the Final cut DVD also contains one of the original releases, IMHO these are the two best versions, and two very different versions.
I saw the final cut yesterday, the line works, didn't feel sanitized, it sort of made the point of Roy meeting his creator.
As for making the movie all safe and PC family fun, that certainly didn't happen. the final cut has all the violence and gore of any of the previous versions, and it was in the theater as a "Not Rated" film.
I have a better solution.
Every voting machine should print out a receipt for the voter with a unique number printed on the receipt that is also associated with the votes cast and retained on the storage card. The vote number can be a combination of the serial number of the voting machine coupled with the date and a simple sequence number (or a function of the sequence number)
The votes collected should then be hosted in an online database that can be searched by the receipt number. This would allow any voter to review the vote cast and ensure that what was received on the receipt is the same as what was officially cast.
Anyone skeptical of the e-voting method would obviously jump right on this chance to participate in this kind of scrutiny. More importantly, any report of a discrepancy would result in a flood of voters checking on their cast votes.
Anyone trying to tamper could not know who will check to confirm their vote, and would have to allow every cast vote to be retained as cast. Solid verifiable evidence of widespread tampering would either result in demand for a revote, possibly using a different method like a paper ballot , or would result in civil uprising.
To prevent ballot stuffing, the people working the election booths would be required to count the number of voters that use each machine and enter that number with the date and the machine number. This number would be entered independently in the online database (perhaps through a secure login). From the searchable database, the number of votes for any given machine could be calculated from the recorded vote ID numbers and compared to the independent count for the date. Third party oversight could be as simple as allowing people to watch a machine from a distance and count the number of voters that step in the booth. Because all of this information would be made immediately available to everyone, the number of eyes scrutinizing the data would make it difficult to screw with an election with any significance.
Imissedthebus, youmissedthebus, wemissedthebus, weallmissedthebus
I do like the thouoght of a 40lb lobster claw, I agree eurypterids would probabaly be some tasty eating.
Sniff, Sniff, I think you just stepped in some sarcasm, I guess you can't smell it....
So you need a DBA geointerographer
So there's a bunch of INS biologists asking bacteria and small plants for their green cards?
Wikipedia should be viewed as a men's room wall, people write stuff on the wall, some is useful, some isn't, the editors should be viewed as the janitors that mostly clean off the piss stains, I wouldn't hold account the owner of the men's room, or the janitors for not cleaning something embarrassing or plain wrong, unless it has been pointed out to be removed or fixed and they refused to correct the info.
The individual that used wiki as a place to air somebody else's laundry should be the one held accountable.
If the accounts to edit can be registered anonymously, then that should probably be changed. It might cut down on the vandalism if everything posted could be linked to an actual person.
I would rather see the election run where, the most votes wins the presidency, the second most wins the vice presidency.
This would allow for independants to have a more realistic chance of getting into office and demonstrating their abilities.
I would much prefer this approach to the all or nothing election system we have now.
Thats easy, Most high performance wings, those used for aerobatic and fighter planes produce close to neutral lift (these wings are close to symmetric), the amount of lift is then mostly attributed to speed and the angle of attack. by inverting the aircraft and pushing forward on the controls, the bottom of the wing will function as the top and lift will be generated.
Low speed or heavy lift wings would be difficult to use inverted, most would only work during a maneuver such as a barrel roll where a positive g is utilized throughout the maneuver, the plane is actually lifting through the roll, still lifting up(toward the ground)while inverted.
When I was growing up and I asked what makes an airplane fly, I was started in a multi year discourse into aerodynamics.
With discussion of bernouli, there was discussion of wingtip vortices, the purpose of wing fences seen on early mig fighters. The turbulence (minor) of jetwash and prop wash and the principals of supersonic flight.
There was never any mention of "downwash" from the air being pushed down to keep an airplane in the air.
If a wing passed through the air and left it completely undisturbed, as is usually drawn in popular science articles on aerodynamics, the wing would generate no lift. How could it? If no force has been exerted on the air, no force can be exerted on the plane, and the only force acting on it is gravity.
If a symmetrical object is moved through the air, there will be equal displacement on each side, and no lift will be generated. A wing is asymmetric, the air traveling underneath experiences little disturbance, the air displaced around the top becomes more spread out, spreading out a gas decreases the temperature and pressure, the differential pressure between lesser displaced air beneath the wing and the more displaced air above the wing generates lift. Again, the air beneath the wing tries to fill the void created above the wing.
To say that the air that lifts an airplane is pushing down is ignoring the concepts of pressure gradients and infinity. There is a pressure gradient, the air trying to go from high pressure to low pressure is exerting force in all directions, but it is a gas, not an orderly stack of connected molecules (press on the top one and the same force is felt on the bottom), the force is dispersed in infinite conditions.
What I am really trying to get at, is that the real action that makes a plane fly does not happen under it pushing down on the air beneath it, but it happens above the wing. An Airplane flies because it is sucked off the ground.
It scares me you were moderated interesting.
You need a lesson in the bernouli principal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_foil/
Aircraft don't fly by pushing down on a bunch of air until they leave the ground.
Forward motion (generated by thrust) is converted to lift. Lift is the result of air flow being split by the airfoil (wing). as the air travels over the top of the airfoil it must travel a greater distance than the air that flows beneath. The spreading of the air as it travels over the top generates a vacuum. the air flowing beneath the airfoil tries to push up to fill the partial void. This generates lift.
Jetwash and wake turbulence are behind the aircraft.
Vortexes created by the wings (the most dangerous part of wake turbulence) are created by the air trying to go around the end of the wing to get to the top, Swept wings amplify this situation as not all of the air flows over the wing parallel to the fuselage, instead it sort of slides off toward the wingtip, a vortex propagates from the wingtip trailing behind the aircraft.
I can see it now:
D0 y0u H8te Spam? Send $1 to this account and it will go to a fund to Assassinate A spammer, and forward this to 5 friends..
And I could just see the "ki11 a spamm3r" e-mails mixed in with the penis boosting hot local singles with stock tips e-mails.
I can just see it, I'm working on some document and the text "TPS Report" shows up. Then 2/3rds of the script for office space is suddenly cluttering the rest of the document.
I'm not sure I want all of my weird random thoughts actually materializing as I type. Oooo Shiney
It would get me fired. Especially if I'm working on something related to my degree (geology), Cleavage, Dike, fold and thrust, my pornographic memory does not always conjure up the safe and sane meaning first.
...
lets ride bikes...
"Engineering research facilities that interview candidates based only on how many papers they have had published also risk adding to the problem, according to Berners-Lee, because of an apparent in-built bias against women"
This idea of interview based only on the number of papers published is more likely to overlook qualified and talented people, not from some "gender bias" that sees fewer women getting published, but because it creates a bias that seeks quantity over quality.
Just because some hack spun a whole bunch of papers off one good idea, he/she is going to get an interview, yet someone that has had numerous and significantly profound ideas but only published a handful of papers that covered the ideas will not get noticed. This is independent of gender.
Would you really want a 400 lb solar powered iPod that's the size of your refrigerator?
You would get one hell of a workout trying to jog with it clipped to your shirt!
Mix the beef with the cannibis oils and get Corned Beef Hashish!
I don't know if I should smoke it or serve it up with eggs.
This Bike would probably still be accelerating at the end of a quarter mile.
Acceleration of a vehicle is nonlinear partially due to aerodynamic drag. Aerodynamic drag increases as a power function and thus acceleration vs time will form a curve, even if the motor output is linear or constant.
You sort of supported the point about the Levees.
Had the levees not failed after the hurricane, there would be more national awareness of the more significant damage to the east of New Orleans.
The fact that people outside of the damaged area still talk about Katrina is really due to an Engineering/Maintenence failure.
If it were not for the levees, Katrina would have dropped from public discussion just like Cindy, Dennis, Rita, and Wilma (The other Hurricanes that made US Landfall in the 2005 Season).
I Didn't RTFA, so I'm going to assume TFA is a discussion about the Quantum state of Sea Life.
Freedom is Security
Security is Control
Therefore Control is Freedom
And We have always been at war with Eastasia
I think massive surveilance networks are doubleplusungood.
"Do you have any particular reason for believing increased mass (in a car with the same cross-sectional area) reduces fuel economy?"
If not, you should. While aerodynamic drag on a car is the most significant factor on fuel economy and is of increasing importance with speed, as Drag is a power function, there are other factors to consider.
The mass of a car has an effect acceleration and drag. Drag is through the tires, similar to the effect of changing tire pressure. The effect on acceleration comes from the amount of energy it takes to accelerate from a stop or increase speed. It is a function of rolling resistance and inertia.
Any NASCAR fan knows this, and should be able to tell you that a car with a nearly empty gas tank is faster (by a small margin) than a car with a full tank, because it weighs less.
You might be able to eek out a few extra miles from every tank of gas by simply reducing the amount of junk in your trunk.
I thought it was a Coupe de Ville
Does that mean Ralph Richardson (The Supreme Being) and a bunch of little people that built the world are going to pick up all the AOL disks and put them into a giant rubbish bin?