Let's hold all future G8 summits exclusively in Russia.
We'll see how many protesters show up.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Speaking of LoGH
In one of the movies, Yang Wenli orders all the small ships take cover behind the big ships.
Who the hell does that? Screening destroyers with battleships?!
Master tactician my ass!
Who the hell does that? Screening destroyers with battleships?!
Master tactician my ass!
Here's a ramble
As I was driving home, I was thinking about drawing spaceships and how to go about it without being cliché.
It occurred to me that the bulk of it would be all sorts of modules cobbled together on a keel based on the necessity of functionality rather than constraints like gravity, hydrodynamanics or aerodynamics. Think of this from Star Wars.
But what if the front were shielded by a smooth angular plate, such that the radar cross-section was minimized from the front. Cheap conditional stealth. So then when engaging missiles, the standard procedure would be to turn in towards them, to minimize target size and radar reflections. Just like the days of yore.
Then I thought about how there's a certain romance to ships of a line, slugging it out with cannons and shot, that often brings space battles in fiction back to it. But how would you bring about something like that without being anachronistic?
Well, of course space is big, projectiles would have a lot of travel time giving the enemy time to respond and evade. So then the weapon of choice would be lasers. Photons. The fastest projectile in the universe. Lasers take a lot of energy and they only travel in straight lines, so you need a big powerplant and many many lasers to increase the probability of a hit (because space is big) and also to maximize the damage dealt in a first strike (because if you shoot, everyone will know where you are). The most efficient way of getting a lot of lasers into space and powering them all would be big battleships with big broadsides.
Countermeasures. What wrecks directed energy weapons most in real life is atmospheric conditions. Obviously if you discharge a gas in space, it'll disperse quickly. But what if you discharge colloidal particles? And they're charged so that when they disperse, not only will they stop beams by direct impediment, but they're scattered at a distance apart that optimizes wave interference from reflected beams. Except the colloid will render your own beam weapons useless, so in a head to head battle, neither side will use this unless they're looking to disengage. Like a futuristic smokescreen. Next is that big battleships move slowly, so even if they are turning in, to avoid missiles, it might not be fast enough. So we can have a bunch of smaller ships whose job is to screen the battleships and they will be bristling with point defense systems, rail guns perhaps or even smaller lasers to engage incoming missiles (the missiles can't be steathy because they'll be emitting radio waves, which can be homed in on). Destroyers.
Missiles have limited maneuverability, because to close the distance they would have to be traveling extremely fast, and to turn around would take too much propellant, which makes them easy to pick off. The corollary would be that if a ship gets hit by a nuke-tipped missile, they are done. Fighters are not useful because humans cannot take the gees and their reaction times are too slow when everything is happening at large fractions of lightspeed (and also, at lightspeed).
There would be development into some novel technologies, like photon cannons that shift frequency to get through the colloid shield or ships that are stealthy from all sides, but the previous represents the most practical and economical technologies of the time.
And that's how I would bring future fleet engagements back into the early 20th century.
Man, I should write a novel. It'll be like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, but sensible.
It occurred to me that the bulk of it would be all sorts of modules cobbled together on a keel based on the necessity of functionality rather than constraints like gravity, hydrodynamanics or aerodynamics. Think of this from Star Wars.
But what if the front were shielded by a smooth angular plate, such that the radar cross-section was minimized from the front. Cheap conditional stealth. So then when engaging missiles, the standard procedure would be to turn in towards them, to minimize target size and radar reflections. Just like the days of yore.
Then I thought about how there's a certain romance to ships of a line, slugging it out with cannons and shot, that often brings space battles in fiction back to it. But how would you bring about something like that without being anachronistic?
Well, of course space is big, projectiles would have a lot of travel time giving the enemy time to respond and evade. So then the weapon of choice would be lasers. Photons. The fastest projectile in the universe. Lasers take a lot of energy and they only travel in straight lines, so you need a big powerplant and many many lasers to increase the probability of a hit (because space is big) and also to maximize the damage dealt in a first strike (because if you shoot, everyone will know where you are). The most efficient way of getting a lot of lasers into space and powering them all would be big battleships with big broadsides.
Countermeasures. What wrecks directed energy weapons most in real life is atmospheric conditions. Obviously if you discharge a gas in space, it'll disperse quickly. But what if you discharge colloidal particles? And they're charged so that when they disperse, not only will they stop beams by direct impediment, but they're scattered at a distance apart that optimizes wave interference from reflected beams. Except the colloid will render your own beam weapons useless, so in a head to head battle, neither side will use this unless they're looking to disengage. Like a futuristic smokescreen. Next is that big battleships move slowly, so even if they are turning in, to avoid missiles, it might not be fast enough. So we can have a bunch of smaller ships whose job is to screen the battleships and they will be bristling with point defense systems, rail guns perhaps or even smaller lasers to engage incoming missiles (the missiles can't be steathy because they'll be emitting radio waves, which can be homed in on). Destroyers.
Missiles have limited maneuverability, because to close the distance they would have to be traveling extremely fast, and to turn around would take too much propellant, which makes them easy to pick off. The corollary would be that if a ship gets hit by a nuke-tipped missile, they are done. Fighters are not useful because humans cannot take the gees and their reaction times are too slow when everything is happening at large fractions of lightspeed (and also, at lightspeed).
There would be development into some novel technologies, like photon cannons that shift frequency to get through the colloid shield or ships that are stealthy from all sides, but the previous represents the most practical and economical technologies of the time.
And that's how I would bring future fleet engagements back into the early 20th century.
Man, I should write a novel. It'll be like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, but sensible.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The last bastions of Liberal power
Looks bad, but let's zoom in a bit.
Uh..hang on.
Okay, wait, one more time.
YEAH! LOOK WHO'S ON TOP NOW!
Don't scoff though; Metro Toronto, Metro Vancouver and Metro Montreal comprise a third of the population of Canada and the combined GDPs of the cities proper amount to $500 billion in a $1.3 trillion Canadian economy, i.e. value disproportionate to their populations.
In other news, I hate Stephen Harper.
Stop spending money on stupid things. I like how people just assume the Conservatives have a balanced budget because they lowered taxes. Spoilers: no, they're not spending your money, they're spending my future earnings because one day someone is going to have to pay for all their crap.
Maybe if I vote Conservative for the rest of my life they can remain in power long enough for me to pass the buck to my children.
But my friends are adamant that it's a bad idea, so anyways...
Dear Mr. Harper, I don't want any more fucking prisons. What do we need them for? Oh yeah, because you're going to increase sentencing terms to be "tough on crime". You know what will be cheaper than 2 billion dollars worth of penitentiaries? How about paying competitive wages for Crown prosecutors? How's that for getting tough on crime? Other than that, I don't know why all your white demograph living in white suburbia is so afraid of crime (which has been going down for decades) anyways. I feel that these new prisons will not, in any shape or form, reduce the number of muggings I experience in any given week. Besides your plan is stupid, restricting the rights of released prisoners is going to make it harder for them to return to an honest living in society, it's going to make for more repeat offenders.
Also, screw all this military spending, we don't need an expeditionary land army. We need P-8s more than all the JSFs in the world. Afghanistan has just been a spec ops circus for the last 8 years anyways.
On abortions, gay-marriage and immigration, good on you! Way to bring social rights in Canada back to an 80s level!
In closing, I hate you personally and I refuse to believe in the moral integrity of any party that would disenfranchise voters¹ to gain power.
And Liberals, get your fucking act together. The conservatives are where they are because centrists hate Harper less than your fucking Michael Ignatieff, so it's your fault. For fuck's sake, what is wrong with the government that I'm yearning for the Paul Martin days? Yeesh!
1. Voter ID was implemented based on a Republican study that showed it caused a 5% gain because new immigrants and young people (a strongly left leaning demographic) are most likely to have difficulty obtaining ID. Voter turnout declined from 68% to 61% under Conservative rule.
McChrystal is damaged goods
Bring in Gen. Mattis; he's got a COIN background and Petraeus is not going back. Plus, he's out of a job and apparently everybody's got a hard on for him.
Yeah, there'll be consequences, but Obama's got to put his foot in the ground.
edit: So Petraeus is going back after all. Colour me surprised, but not disappointed.
Yeah, there'll be consequences, but Obama's got to put his foot in the ground.
edit: So Petraeus is going back after all. Colour me surprised, but not disappointed.
Monday, June 21, 2010
"Meet you on Q+Bath"
That Scott Pilgrim movie better be filmed in Toronto or I will be cross!
What I actually want to talk about is that I hear a lot of people complain that O'Malley or Beaton's art is bad.
No.
I can see how it might be off putting, that's fair enough; personally I hate the character designs in Ren and Stimpy, but Kricfalusi is not a bad artist¹.
The art is technically excellent. Good art isn't always about how accurately you can draw an arm. I challenge anyone who thinks they have the skill to put pen to paper and create as dynamic a cast as those two have. And it's not just about drawing characters, it's the composition as well, and both of them succeed at it marvelously.
I posit that no one who has the skill to actually pull it off, would dare say that Beaton or O'Malley are poor artists.
1. On the other hand, the animation in Family Guy is terrible. Terrible.
What I actually want to talk about is that I hear a lot of people complain that O'Malley or Beaton's art is bad.
No.
I can see how it might be off putting, that's fair enough; personally I hate the character designs in Ren and Stimpy, but Kricfalusi is not a bad artist¹.
The art is technically excellent. Good art isn't always about how accurately you can draw an arm. I challenge anyone who thinks they have the skill to put pen to paper and create as dynamic a cast as those two have. And it's not just about drawing characters, it's the composition as well, and both of them succeed at it marvelously.
I posit that no one who has the skill to actually pull it off, would dare say that Beaton or O'Malley are poor artists.
1. On the other hand, the animation in Family Guy is terrible. Terrible.
The Imprint: Establishing a high watermark for credibility once again!
"Following the second World War's end, the UN passed security council resolution 242 that ordered the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces," Cameron said, "But today, 43 years later, nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers reside in occupied Palestine, 300,000 of them in the West Bank. All of this in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, the European Union, and the United Nations."
Yes. Israeli settlers in the West Bank are violating the Geneva conventions. Also the European Union.
Remind me again why I'm paying a student fee for this?
Yes. Israeli settlers in the West Bank are violating the Geneva conventions. Also the European Union.
Remind me again why I'm paying a student fee for this?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Wonder if I should to get the password to that Facebook with my name.
Then Toria can be my Facebook friend.
But I have soo many "accounts" already. =P
Then Toria can be my Facebook friend.
But I have soo many "accounts" already. =P
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Frag Kit 6
Looks absolutely ridiculous.
It adds another 2'(!) of horizontal clearance to your Frag 5 HMMWV, and check out those upgraded view ports.
I would love to roll around suburban Toronto in an H2 kitted out like this; maybe with some Jay-Z, lookin' like a real douchebag. The extra 1000lbs is practically screaming, "fuck the environment!"
Not suburban Iraq though, because then I might roll into a ditch and die.
It adds another 2'(!) of horizontal clearance to your Frag 5 HMMWV, and check out those upgraded view ports.
I would love to roll around suburban Toronto in an H2 kitted out like this; maybe with some Jay-Z, lookin' like a real douchebag. The extra 1000lbs is practically screaming, "fuck the environment!"
Not suburban Iraq though, because then I might roll into a ditch and die.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)