"so does this mean I cant have a meatball torpedo?"

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Ah, Ducatisti! Haha. I actually worked at a Ducati dealership in the mid nineties. They actually sent me to service school in Fairfield, NJ to learn to work on the 916. They're a little to fast and agile for me, not to mention a little uncompromizing for the touring I like to do. Fabulous bikes though. I work with a guy who has a basement full of them, and is building a 70's one frame up right now from an old 750ss that somebody brutalized into a chopper. He's making a nasty cafe out of it.

Do you race motard? I'll behave myself because apparently you're quite mad! I've never raced, but I'm mot putting it out of my head that I might get out there some day. I'd like to do one of the schools, like penguin I think it's called, and I king Keith Code has a school and there's that California one you always see in the back of the bike mags. That and a couple of track days.


I've had the 748S since 2000 and it was joined by the 600SS in 2005 purely to race. The club that I belong to (Ducati Sporting Club UK) started its own race series so I had to have a go as trackdays were getting too competitive. If you're interested, I blogged a load of stuff on my website at the time: http://www.horrible.demon.co.uk/bikes/racing2005.htm

I stopped racing in 2007 after getting torpedoed from behind at about 90mph and that broke me and the bike; one collarbone and a few ribs for me and the bike was trashed. I rebuilt it once the collarbone had healed but it was a year later that I went back and raced - I came 7th (out of 38) so didn't do too bad for a year out!

The Hypermotard is strictly for wheelies^H^H road riding. It's an animal! Best bike I've ever owned and always makes me smile.

I've been to the Ducati factory in Bologna five times now and ended up organising the factory trips for the club which were quite popular! It's an amazing place, really interesting to see such a small factory at work on such a well-known name. Well worth doing if you can, even if you're not that much of a Ducati fan!

Some bike pictures:
Racing Pics
Bike pics

>> ^schmawy:
So beautiful and sleek...
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5704604-lg.jpg


Yeah - it looks like a torpedo with wings. And I love how the legs tuck back for aerodynamics.

Check this out - http://videosift.com/video/Peregrine-falcon-recorded-going-183-and-242-MPH-in-dives

^I think they can do better than 1cm though, but it is impractical no matter what... the ice re-freezes around the cable, I would imagine, not to mention other weird forces (massive EM outbursts from Jupiter would probably get picked up by the upper part of the wire and disturb the signal/burn the circuitry, for instance).

And ULF-radio takes a lot of juice. Presumably the nuclear torpedo has an RTG at most.

Wire is the way to go, i think (and it seems there's a thin one in the video, although that may be my imagination).

Wire... or monoliths.

^Crake: Sub sends signal to the "nuclear torpedo", which is connected by wire to the surface landing module, which relays the signal to the orbiting craft, which uses the powerful antenna array to send it to Earth. Complex and one-way communication, but nothing NASA hasn't attempted to solve before. Unless they send it in metric...

^cybrbeast: I'm aware of the Drake Equation and it's implications on finding life within our own solar system. But when we're going specifically into places where we expect life to be possible, it's best to be too cautious than to assume there's nothing there, imo.
As for the likelihood of life under all that ice with no sunlight: If you watch the entire film, you see that they are in fact following a team of ocean explorers which take subs to the deepest parts man can survive in, in order to find new life, new species and understand how life survives there at all.
Europa is believed to have a molten core (which is the reason there's an ocean there at all, presumably), and is not just a big slab of ice. If that's the case, there might be Thermal Vents there, which allow life to exist on Earth in environments previously thought to be impossible.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, let's go on a mission to see if there's life on Europa, while actually preparing to find said life, and not just doing it to mark a checkbox and say "Europa? Meh, been there, done that, got the T-Shirt".

.. did you just suggest cornholing the children?

>> ^Fjnbk:
Make a corn hole, but call it Trench Run or something better than that. The beanbags the kids toss are actually proton torpedoes, and the holes to toss them into are thermal exhaust ports.
This idea isn't very good, but... C3PO Race. The kids have to walk like C3PO as fast as they can. Yeah, not very good.
That's what I can think of now, I'll post some more if they come to me.

Make a corn hole, but call it Trench Run or something better than that. The beanbags the kids toss are actually proton torpedoes, and the holes to toss them into are thermal exhaust ports.

This idea isn't very good, but... C3PO Race. The kids have to walk like C3PO as fast as they can. Yeah, not very good.

That's what I can think of now, I'll post some more if they come to me.

Boy - the left wing of the political class sure does think that everyone is incredibly stupid.

Bush had about - and I'm being generous - two days of VERY begrudged relative silence from the Democrat party after 9/11. During the election Bush was assailed relentlessly as a moron/drunk/fratboy. Immediately after the election he was relentlessly assailed as illegitimate because of FloriDUH. The opposition from the Democrat side immediately after his election was staunch, persistent, and rather personal. There were contant calls for his failure, and for knee-jerk resistance and rejection to any and all of his policies. "Tax cuts for the rich" anyone? I - unlike too many people here it would seem - have not forgotten that in 2001 it was the DEMOCRAT party that was the "Party of NO!"

Then 9/11 hit, and for about two days the Democrat party had a reluctant, bitter, and resentful cease-fire. But even then they were clearly chomping at the bit to lite into Bush, and they couldn't help themselves entirely. Even in those dark days there were Democrats and left-wing media pundits saying it was all a Bush conspiracy. And there were constant jibes at Bush for his 'handling'. Whining about him reading to the kids... Insinuations that he was a coward for staying on his airplane... It went on, and I (unlike some of YOU) have not forgotten it.

Then Bush started moving at Iraq and the party of "NO!" came back 100-fold. And since that day the Democrat party resisted everything Bush did, called for his failure, worked to aid and abet our enemies, and generally did everything they could possibly do to cause Bush problems and ensure that Bush 'failed' in the polls.

I - unlike some of YOU - have not forgotten that 99.93151% of the Bush administration's term was 100% pure partisan contrariness. I haven't forgotten that the left wing hoped for, prayed for, called for, and (most importantly) WORKED for Bush failure. It is pure sophistry for some of you to imply that Democrats somehow were hoping Bush succeeded as they were actively torpedoing his administration, and calling it a complete failure every day in the news.

Now - here's the point... I - unlike YOU - am not a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with people wanting Bush to fail. I was no fan of Bush, and I WANTED many of his policied to fail completely. His big spending agendas... He toss-away liberal policies... His terrible management and domestic agenda... His pointless persistence in Iraq... I WANTED them to fail, and I wanted them to END because they were BAD POLICY. There is nothing wrong with wanting a stupid man's BAD policies to fail because they are bad for the country.

And you know what? Obama's plan to socialize America, tax productivity, cap & trade energy, and otherwise turn America into "Euroloserland" is also BAD POLICTY. I want all of Obama's BAD POLICY to fail and fail hardcore. And I will do what I can to aid and assist in the resistance to Obama's bad policies. I will march against Obama like some of you marched against Bush and for the exact same reasons... Because he's a terrible president who is enacting idiotic policies that will cause incredible damage to this great nation for years to come.

You see - I'm not a slave (like some of YOU) to a 'party'. Those of you that mindlessly hew to party politics must dance to the tune of your pied piper. You don't mind selling out your honesty, fairness, and common sense because you have whored them out in the name of partisan fanboism. I - as an intelligent principled person who stands on pure philosophy am not shackled by such limitations. And so for me there is nothing inconsistent in my PRINCIPLE BASED resistance to both Bush's and Obama's bad policies. You - sadly - are party slaves who have no choice but to surrender your integreity when your messiah snaps his fingers. I pity you. But fret not. Those of us with a stiffer spine and more courage will fight the good fight with our without you...

watching the movie who killed the electric car. battery technology is there but is owned by oil companies go figure. that show was obviously biased and i love how they linked it to a nuclear power plant at the end, even though nuclear power if done right is actual really clean energy. i am sure as well the reviews on preston tucker's torpedo wasn't bias it either.

How to design a perfect TV game show stunt course for women:

1. Legs spread and wrapped around a torpedo. Check.
2. Vulnerable, expectant look in their eyes. Check.
3. .... ... I can't keep writing this comment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by rebel spies."
"How interesting!"

*Picard shrugs* "Fire torpedoes."

Then they went back to arming the quantum torpedoes.

For a good breakdown of the chronology, see this video.

The Dems are right to point fingers at McCain.

I don't mind the deal being torpedoed, but that wasn't what his stated intent was.

A duplicate of http://www.videosift.com/video/Super-effective-torpedo-splits-a-destroyer-into-two-pieces and http://www.videosift.com/video/You-sunk-my-battleship ?

^NetRunner: That's what vetting for political office entails -- searching a candidate's past for any tabloid-style scandals that could come out of nowhere to torpedo your chances, regardless of your policy positions. People have been doing that to Obama all over the world for some 20 months now.

I understand that the kind of vetting that you refer to holds value. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a deep examination into his career.

Not to be too snide, but you do understand how elections work, right? People very often will vote for who they feel "comfortable" with, above any other consideration. Generally speaking (and I realize that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn't work this way), the person who gets more votes gets the Presidency. I suppose that's a popularity contest.

I understand exactly why people vote for him. That's why I debate the issues. Because there isn't enough of that going on. It's mostly just propaganda.
I believe my point is still valid: Just because people are comfortable, doesn't mean they know much about his policies and voting history. According to something I heard on the radio today, while serving on the Illinois State Senate, despite the fact that he was present, Barack Obama was unable to decide yea or nay, 130 times.

Before I address your specific concerns, I'll note that you're phrasing the argument in terms of Obama's plan, rather than touting the superiority of another candidates'. Perhaps you're part of the media elite that the DNC controls who can't stop talking about Obama?

I also need to ask when Republicans are planning on holding Bush accountable for his deficit? You know, that $482 billion one you mentioned, plus the "emergency" spending levied for the war in Iraq that wasn't on the budget. Never? Is McCain somehow immune from being held responsible for the Republican party's failings over the last 8 years, despite being that party's standard-bearer?

Politics aside, you're making a valid (if one-sided) argument -- based purely on policy promises from Obama, the proposed tax plan doesn't pay for the spending proposals. But McCain's doesn't either.

My argument is one-sided because I'm not defending anyone who is running for President. I'm not Pro-McCain, I'm Anti-Obama.

If a balanced budget is your primary economic concern (and it's not my primary one, personally), here's what the two candidates offer:

Obama does not commit to balance the budget, just reduce the deficit, and his plan looks to reduce the level to approx $250bn/yr.

McCain on the other hand commits to balancing the budget in his first term, but his proposals point to a $370bn/yr deficit.

Which makes you more comfortable?


Do you realize how much our deficit, the weakening dollar, and the high price of fuel have in common. It's a snowball effect that trickles down to the price of food and the wages we're paid. Getting the country out of debt is on my top 3 list of things for the next Pres to accomplish. I want him to whittle the deficit down as much as possible.

If you don't mind, could you cite your sources on those projected deficit figures you references? I'd love to read up on that. It would definitely change my opinion of Obama if they turn out to be accurate. I just can't imagine that they are. I wouldn't think he's been specific enough for somebody to put together numbers like that (Although, I have been wrong once or twice before).