Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I stumbled upon this rather bonkers little told story of a division of the old Chinese Nationalist army who were on the wrong side of China when Jiǎng Ji?sh? et al fled to Taiwan.

They carried on fighting, ended up deeply embroiled in the Heroin trade, were bombed by the Royal Laotian Airforce, who made of with all the spoils, for their troubles and finally lay down their arms and retired to a hidden corner of Thailand after fighting for 40 years!!


http://www.oldworldwandering.com/2012/05/03/china-forgotten-army-mae-salong-thailand/

http://www.travelwriters.co.uk/marinicholson/thailand-kuomintang.htm

loved this


here[/url]]Now that we're up to around a quarter of the entire British army guarding the Olympics, a thought occurs: given that rights to the whole thing have been parcelled up and flogged off, does the event have an official terrorist group? I mean, we wouldn't want no-marks like ETA turning up and spoiling the whole thing with a crap atrocity. A world class event demands high quality terrorism, either from established global players in 'far enemy' markets or from dynamic, savvy regional armed gangs seeking entry on to the world stage: I'm looking at you, al Shabaab.



Obviously, we could make subsidiary rights available to your bog standard national liberation movements. They could have a crack at, say, the rowing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ah, memories. Here's Tessa Jowell in 2008:


The London Games in 2012 will beat Beijing by being more "democratic", Olympics minister Tessa Jowell says.


By 'democratic' Tessa meant 'involving more mass participation', by which metric the Arirang games in Pyongyang are festivals of popular anarchy. But it was an aspiration of sorts. And them times ain't no more.


I mean, if you were going to write that trite leftie dystopia novel, the one in which the army man checkpoints in central London and crowds of children are taught to be publicly grateful to the corporate sponsors, and there are missiles on the roofs, but you hadn't because you were aware on some level that it was a bit shopworn and cliched and besides you're not so sure about Chomsky as you used to be, well, then it's too late, because reality has just beat you to it.

1993. Brian Sutherland from South Carolina described himself as an "undefeated street-fighter". He figured since he was such a tough guy, he may as well get paid for something he was apprently so good at. So, proudly sporting a mullet haircut, a thick moustache, and a pot-belly, he stepped into the boxing ring against Liverpool's Kenny Rainford.


At the start of the first round, Sutherland rushed towards his opponent, throwing a wild flurry of slaps and overhead punches, leaving the commentators in fits of laughter. His opponent, clearly puzzled by such tactics, resorted to simply pushing Sutherland away. After one minute Rainford had seen enough, and hit Sutherland clean on the chin. Sutherland spun round and crumpled onto the canvas. Putting an end to surely the worst pro-boxing career ever.


  • 4 weeks later...

adam curtis, in the spirit of mars curiosity, links to a programme from the 50s where George King channels a VEnusian with a remarkable RP accent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/08/mental_channel_number_one_-_th.html


weirdly charming and as far removed from the Paxman school of interview as possible.

  • 3 weeks later...

Scince catches up with SF.

Interesting interview with reknowned neuroscientist on the possibility that the internet could (in principal) be concious, an idea floated by the likes of william gibson, dan simmons among others.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/the-nature-of-consciousness-how-the-internet-could-learn-to-feel/261397/?single_page=true

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, can anyone explain to me how I can take one of those ready meal things out of a 180 C oven and within five seconds hold it by the fingertips without pain.

It's a bit weird, how does that stuff cool so quickly, is it made of kryptonite or something? I mean the tomatoes are still too hot to eat the following morning!!

The foil packs?


There's good reason for that to do with thermal conductivity and mass....


Here's a good example that someone had already worked out:


The specific heat of water is 4.184 Joules per gram-degree C (or K) and aluminum is .91 Joules per gram-degree C. That means that a gram of foil takes one fourth as much energy as a gram of water to heat up (or one fourth as much must be removed for it to cool off one degree).


So, if we assume that the foil WASN'T giving off heat through radiation or conductivity with the air, you take a ball of foil out of the oven with your bare hand. If the ball is made of 2 square feet of foil, it will have a mass of about 8 grams. 330 deg F diff (180 deg K) by 8 is 1466. 1466 divided by (4.184/.91) gives you 385 gram/degrees.


That 385 is the number of gram-degrees that would be absorbed by your hand. Assuming the surface of your hand is mostly water, and you put 50 grams of hand water in contact with the ball, it would raise that 50 grams of water ~8 degrees C, which is 14 degrees F.


So, even if you come into contact with all 2 square feet of foil at once, and it hadn't radiated or conducted any heat away to the air so it's still at 400 degrees F, the surface of your hand would only be raised 14 degrees F, a long way from a burn.


Once you take into account radiation, conduction by the air, and the miniscule area of the foil that you actually touch, it's not odd that it doesn't feel warm.


In other words the foil is just too light, and has too high a thermal conductivity, to offer anything to your rather massive thermally inert hand.


The tomato, with all that water in, is another issue entirely.

Well the tomato has very comparable specific heat as your hand or mouth.


So if you transferred the heat of a 100g tomato at 400 degrees F to 50g worth of hand (or 50g of your tongue and inside cheek) at a body temperature of 100 degrees F, then you're likely to find an equilibrium at around 300 degrees F for both.


The consequences of superheating your hand or mouth to 300 degrees F doesn't bear contemplation, so please do not try at home.


http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/angry_rotten_tomato_cartoon_character_photosculpture-p153163510684721079env3d_216.jpg

I actually meant the plastic tray that the food sits in, but I think the explanation works for that too with some parameter tweaking.


veery interesting thanks



On another random aside this article made me chuckle quite a bit, don't worry it isfw

http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/war-nerd-obamas-wars

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...