It could work

Actually, it wouldn't work on the ground. But maybe it could be built in space. That, or something like that.



I'm thinkin of the space station ideas that I wrote about recently.

But something that launched from the ground? Nope...

The Starship could put massive amounts of material into space. All it would require is that someone be willing to fund the project.

Using small nuke devices to power it through the solar system is entirely feasible. But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Even I could be wrong sometimes. heh, heh, heh

space ark

About that imminent Starship launch...

According to this video, we're going to have to hold our horses on this one for a bit longer. Now that the FAA has got its hands into it, it will be awhile; for the government never moves fast.

A couple more days, it will be 4 months since the first launch. More than likely, it may well be 4 more months before the next launch. That means some time deep into December.

But there is always the possibility of surprises.

Actually, the Angry Astronaut has a point. If something this big has a malfunction, it could get really nasty. Better to err on the side of caution. It's a mighty big rocket that could go BOOM in a really big way.

SpaceX could be testing the crap out of this thing for the next four months, and then a lift off MIGHT be permitted.

Jeff Beck: Freeway Jam

Nearest freeway isn't free, and it's more than 35 miles away. It's also under construction, and gas is too expensive to drive anywhere.

I used to drive for a living. Maybe I miss it, who knows?

Houston is full of freeways. But they are usually crowded. It's not crowded here, ha ha.

SpaceX Starship update, 8/18/23

 

The hot staging ring has been stacked on to booster 9. Spacex submits launch mishap report for the first launch back in April. Those two are the biggies.

There may be some more testing of the booster on the launch mount, which could include another static fire. Plus the full stack will need to be tested before the next launch.

The launch can be no earlier than August 31st. Just my opinion here that the government is not known to be fast. They have to review the mishap report and then they'll have to go from there.

If there are no surprises, there may be a launch in the next month. But it's getting closer all the time.

Why The Shining is Terrifying?

That is, what makes it terrifying for the author of the video.

The movie isn't scary to me. It is mostly unpleasant. It isn't scary, because it is all too obviously meant to be scary. If you can see through it, it loses its power. At least that is my explanation.

But it is definitely unpleasant. You have things like a beautiful naked girl arising from the shower, and then that girl turns into a hideous and hysterically laughing, diseased old hag. Disgusting!

Then there was the scene with the guy in the wolf mask. It wasn't until this video that I finally got what was intended there. It didn't look like a wolf mask. It looked like two dudes in bed, and one was dressed up in some sort of weird costume. I didn't see anything bloody or anything like that. What's so scary about it? It's just repulsive.

The elevator flowing with blood just wasn't plausible in any sense.

There was some mildly scary stuff with Wendy's discovery of Jack's "writing". He is obviously insane at this point, and he's threatening her. You wonder if she's going to be able to get away from him.

The scene where he is chasing Danny in the maze may be somewhat scary, but that is also somewhat implausible. How does a little kid outwit his father?

All of this leads to the question of "what could have been done differently"? Evidently it is truly scary for others, but not for me. I would think that something to be truly scary, you'd have to be a part of the scene somehow, and find it believable. Maybe that's why it doesn't scare me. It is too obviously intended to be scary that it gives itself away as a scary film. That's not scary unless you don't think it's obvious.

It's a rigged game

 

The elections are rigged. The juries are rigged. The news is rigged. The polls are rigged.

When you cannot believe anything anymore, then what?

It's anarchy, meaning the law of the jungle. Ultimately meaning a 100% inverted system that pretends to be what it is not.

Using the Rush song to show the attitude. Life is meaningless, a game of chance, and a game that is rigged against you.

Barry Goldwater's 1964 Acceptance Speech of Nomination for President

8/16/23 update of the post of 7/23/16:

Barry Goldwater really walked into it. If he had avoided the use of the words "extremism", he might have made it impossible to typecast him as someone to fear.

I note in the comment section that people approve of this phrasing. But the phrasing was easy to attack and mischaracterize. That's why you have to be careful about how you phrase the things you say. This sounds like Goldwater was praising "extremism", and criticizing "moderation". Very easy to attack, so LBJ produced the "Daisy commercial".

 



What can make it so easy for the leftists to attack is to give them the tools to do it with?



the original post follows:

It is remarkably modest speech that got mischaracterized as the ranting of a mad man.

Why?

A couple lines that made it sound like he favored extremism over moderation.  That's it. 
On the basis of this, and perhaps a few other quotes like it, LBJ was able to win in a landslide.

The lesson?

A modest guess:  Few people could have watched this and concluded that they were witnessing the rantings of a madman.  The only way they could have been alarmed is by what they were told to be alarmed about.

With that in mind, I can only conclude that if people are as gullible with respect to the news media as they were in 1964, Trump may well meet the same fate.

But Reagan did win in 1980.  He won by saying many of the same things Goldwater did here.  The lesson there is that it can be done.