Cybermat, Mark III:
Microsoft Arc Mouse:
Coincidental similarity? Hah… I think not.
I’m not a sports fan at all. As a consequence, TV sports interviews and commentary always have annoyed me as being boring, repetitive, and pointless. I’ve even talked to friends who ARE sports fans, but prefer to turn the sound off on the TV when watching a game. A friend of mine sent me this cartoon that so perfectly represents this in a way I could never have done – LMAO!
There’s quite a bit of talk these days about drones, or unmanned aircraft (UAS). These have several problems, when you get right down to it.
I am mainly concerned about #3, though the first two certainly are things to think about. As time go by we (as a nation) are slowly giving up our privacy by allowing our lives to become more public (we post personal stuff on Facebook or Twitter and then wonder how stalkers know about us for example). Todays youth has grown up with this pervasive social network and doesn’t even give a thought to how their personal privacy is compromised by participating. It seems it’s only us old farts who grew up before this became prevalent who look at it and say “wow, that’s not good, nope, I’m not doing that”.
Unmanned drones are another thing that is starting to take off (ok, sorry, couldn’t resist that). If we sit idly by and allow this to happen, then there will be no concept of privacy, even in your own back yard.
One town in Colorado has a proposal drafted by resident Phillip Steel to do something about this, in a very American manner. According to Steel, “We do not want drones in town. They fly in town, they get shot down”. Excellent!
The proposal was to sell $25 hunting licenses, and offered a $100 reward to anyone who shot down a drone “known to be owned or operated by the United States Government”. Wow, how cool is THAT??
The FAA of course (in their traditional role as spoilsports) takes issue with this, stating “Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane”. They claim that they are responsible for airspace and safety and that a damaged aircraft could crash and hurt somebody or damage property (hmm… kinda like my #2 above even without the gunman, but I’m sure they feel THOSE risks are acceptable).
Personally, I think that if everybody took the attitude that Mr. Steel has, that the FAA would find it difficult or impossible to enforce on a large scale, the government would find that they are spending a LOT of money to replace these expensive planes, and the whole thing would fizzle, much to the delight of privacy loving folks everywhere.
Here’s another entertaining alternative, borrowed from WWII. The Germans had flying bombs which had no pilot and would fly across the channel, run out of Petrol (it’s England, folks), then crash and explode. They were quite terrifying as weapons because of their random targets and because you could hear them and knew you were safe… until the engine stopped. Very Hitchcock-esque from a terror standpoint, but I digress. The allies came up with a good solution. They’d fly up next to these things, put a wingtip under their wing and then roll their plane. This caused the bomb to bank, veer off course, and crash in the channel. Wouldn’t it be fun to do that with a Drone? Of course I never would do such a terrible thing, and I would never recommend that anybody else do such a terrible and rebellious act, but it’s fun to think about isn’t it? I bet there are a number of other fun scenarios that don’t involve something as direct as shooting a drone down. This could be a fun video game!!
Here’s a short article in AVWEB about this amusing Colorado proposal.
Californians crack me up. After living in Canada and New Jersey, I got used to snow and cold. So when I see people wandering around newport beach in Parkas with mittens, I can’t help smiling. Jimmy Kimmel assembled this bit which is painfully true:
From my Uncle’s most excellent blog:
The British Medical Association has weighed in on the new Prime Minister David Cameron’s health care proposals.
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had a sort of a gut feeling about it, but the neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, Grow up!"
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.
The Surgeons were fed up with the cuts and decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The ENT specialists didn’t swallow it, and just wouldn’t hear of it.
The Pharmacologists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter…."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthetists thought the whole idea was a gas, but the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the arseholes in London.
You can click on any of these to zoom in
A new tool will help you get rid of bumper stickers when you've had a change of heart.