@westy

In that situation, however, you'd have someone else to spray it on for you. A coach or someone else. And I doubt they'd wear this because it doesn't seem all that aerodynamic to me. It looks very fluffy, not anything like the skin-tight suits that athletes wear.

Also, the more I think about it, the sillier a "booth" idea is. There's no way a booth can estimate your exact dimensions to properly give you a shirt, so you'll either end up with this in your hair, or have some form of tube top.

Also:

You:
"what are you on about vacume rapping ?"
"for example if u wanted to protect something as a way of rapping things quickly could be equivelent to vacume packing"

There's no way this material would be able to vacuum seal anything, it's a FABRIC, fabrics BREATHE. Even Astronauts space-suits have a layer of rubber and kevlar. Surgeons already have skin-tight gloves, it's a requirement, and how do you expect this to act as a raincoat when it doesn't repel water?

If you're in a survival situation, why wouldn't you already be prepared with thick gloves and a thick jacket, and even still, how would a paper-thin fabric retain enough heat to stave off either hypothermia or frostbite?

The only thing this opens up is field-bandaging, as anything else it basically flops.

Before you start opening up with more things it could do, think about that for a while. What practical use could it serve, and how would it achieve that?

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^westy:
>> ^Shepppard:
Yeah.. the spray on clothing thing seems silly to me. Two things come to mind.. One, how long do you think it would take to make a full shirt..
..second, if you're applying this to yourself, how are you going to cover your back?
The reason I upvoted this is because that really could be managed into a decent bandage in field-situations. That impresses me.

obvously you could redesign the method of aplicatoin.
for example u could just have a booth u stand in that covers you instantly.
where this is intresting for clothing is for sporting clothes , or for example if u wanted to protect something as a way of rapping things quickly could be equivelent to vacume packing but be aplied allot faster and offer more padding.

And who in their right mind is going to say "You know what I could use in this room? A giant booth that can spray a shirt on for me."
That isn't practical. It's not viable to put one of these on solo in your own household. I also highly doubt this is equivilant to vaccuum wrapping, being as it would need to have the ability to allow air to escape, otherwise you'd become a sweaty mess with this on.


If your a profesoinal cycalist then its not to obsurd to think sumone would foot the bill to have a booth constructed for it that can quickly spray you before an event .

what are you on about vacume rapping ? u could easily use this to wrap products maby do something fancy with it as a quick way to gift wrap things or as a way to package items together with the advantage of it being able to be reciceld easily.

yah i dont think its that viable as an every day peace of clothing , but a spray on rain coat , how about skin tight gloves for sergins . how about protectoin against frost bite or hipothermiea in servival situatoins ?

your just been a bit closed minded and specifcally saying it has to do exactly what clothing now does rather than thinking what new things it opens up.

>> ^westy:

>> ^Shepppard:
Yeah.. the spray on clothing thing seems silly to me. Two things come to mind.. One, how long do you think it would take to make a full shirt..
..second, if you're applying this to yourself, how are you going to cover your back?
The reason I upvoted this is because that really could be managed into a decent bandage in field-situations. That impresses me.

obvously you could redesign the method of aplicatoin.
for example u could just have a booth u stand in that covers you instantly.
where this is intresting for clothing is for sporting clothes , or for example if u wanted to protect something as a way of rapping things quickly could be equivelent to vacume packing but be aplied allot faster and offer more padding.


And who in their right mind is going to say "You know what I could use in this room? A giant booth that can spray a shirt on for me."

That isn't practical. It's not viable to put one of these on solo in your own household. I also highly doubt this is equivilant to vaccuum wrapping, being as it would need to have the ability to allow air to escape, otherwise you'd become a sweaty mess with this on.

>> ^Shepppard:

Yeah.. the spray on clothing thing seems silly to me. Two things come to mind.. One, how long do you think it would take to make a full shirt..
..second, if you're applying this to yourself, how are you going to cover your back?
The reason I upvoted this is because that really could be managed into a decent bandage in field-situations. That impresses me.


obvously you could redesign the method of aplicatoin.

for example u could just have a booth u stand in that covers you instantly.

where this is intresting for clothing is for sporting clothes , or for example if u wanted to protect something as a way of rapping things quickly could be equivelent to vacume packing but be aplied allot faster and offer more padding.

My little town of Kitchener is known for it's oktoberfest, which we actually do have in october, 8-16th or somesuch.

I generally end up actually working in a booth for gambling games for entertainment at one of the fest halls (nothing major, pieces are worth 50c each) with a max bet of 2.00. Can't remember it's name, but you place bets on a symbol, I spin a wheel, and if your symbol comes up you get 1x your money back for each. (3 symbols per space on the wheel, so a max amount of 3x your money back)

I once had a girl give me her phone number because I consecutively spun her symbol, ahh, the wonders of drunks.

(and for the record, no, the game isn't rigged )

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
I don't know enough about law to make an informed decision on this one. But I did get this from the alaskan state fair website:
Press Release:
Regarding the incident on the Alaska State Fair Fairgrounds 26 August 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010 at 9:50pm
Our concern is first and foremost the safety of our fairgoers, the families with their children who should be able to enjoy the fair without disturbance or potential danger.
We are in touch with the company with whom we have a contract for fair security to review what transpired. We are also in touch with the Palmer Police on this matter.
Because the fairgrounds is on private property, we reserve the right to remove someone from the premises who is creating a disruption or may pose a threat to the safety of others.
We welcome diverse viewpoints and have a structure in place at the Alaska State Fair that allows for peaceful discord and exchange at our vendor and organization booth area.


I am going to speak about the commentor here, not you Tym. I am really annoyed with lame-o's like this punk.

Why do people state irrelavent information? They say it to stir up silly bullshit. "We reserve the right to remove someone from the premises who is creating a disruption..." Good, they can stop right there. Everything else is propaganda lame-o shit. "or may pose a threat to the safety of others." You think so? Is that just because you own the property? I thought, dickmunch, that "danger" would be for the public too...but by your statement, you imply anyone can be dangerous anywhere that is not private property...

The protestor was little danger, and the guy or girl issuing the statement needs to stop adding bullshit and stfu.

I don't know enough about law to make an informed decision on this one. But I did get this from the alaskan state fair website:

Press Release:
Regarding the incident on the Alaska State Fair Fairgrounds 26 August 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010 at 9:50pm

Our concern is first and foremost the safety of our fairgoers, the families with their children who should be able to enjoy the fair without disturbance or potential danger.

We are in touch with the company with whom we have a contract for fair security to review what transpired. We are also in touch with the Palmer Police on this matter.

Because the fairgrounds is on private property, we reserve the right to remove someone from the premises who is creating a disruption or may pose a threat to the safety of others.

We welcome diverse viewpoints and have a structure in place at the Alaska State Fair that allows for peaceful discord and exchange at our vendor and organization booth area.

What kind of person would fill a soundproof booth of self-censoring with water and put a boat in there?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's interesting that the first ever interaction I ever had with you Gwiz was around your concept of "self censorship". Let me reiterate what I said all those many months ago: Just because you can say anything you want, doesn't mean you should. That includes threats to maim or kill little old ladies with Alzheimers.
>> ^gwiz665:

Well, @dag, the difference is the people who do the things are the psychopaths, not those of us who are disgusted by her actions.
Saying - among friends or associates, such as here - that she's a wicked person, a fucking bitch and whatever other explitive you want to add is in no way psychopathic and to suggest it is undermining the meaning of the word.
SHE is likely a psychopath, if she does not feel remorse or have "bad feelings" about doing this to an innocent animal.
She deserves punishment, not death. If someone thinks she deserves death for this, then their moral compass is screwed up, but they are not psychopaths.
So once again, bullshit.
If you or anyone else wants to sit in a soundproof booth of self-censoring and not try to rock the boat, go ahead, but don't expect other people to join you there.

Well, @dag, the difference is the people who do the things are the psychopaths, not those of us who are disgusted by her actions.

Saying - among friends or associates, such as here - that she's a wicked person, a fucking bitch and whatever other explitive you want to add is in no way psychopathic and to suggest it is undermining the meaning of the word.

SHE is likely a psychopath, if she does not feel remorse or have "bad feelings" about doing this to an innocent animal.

She deserves punishment, not death. If someone thinks she deserves death for this, then their moral compass is screwed up, but they are not psychopaths.

So once again, bullshit.

If you or anyone else wants to sit in a soundproof booth of self-censoring and not try to rock the boat, go ahead, but don't expect other people to join you there.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Xax:

Everybody's gotta go to Disney World just once. Problem is, if you're like me, after you've gone once you can't not go back.


Is there a picture of you at the booth with an x through it?!

No no, I said I "can't not go back"... double negative. In other words, I must go back.

>> ^Xax:

Everybody's gotta go to Disney World just once. Problem is, if you're like me, after you've gone once you can't not go back.


Is there a picture of you at the booth with an x through it?!

"it's certainly true that a much larger percentage of conservatives are likely to answer "I don't trust either party" in polls, even if they reliably go into the voting booths to give the Republican party power.
The big problem is that they don't find that to be contradictory in the slightest."

Lesser of two weevils voters. It's not really contradictory. They stay with their party because of worldview-based judgments of which party stands more in line with their stance on the majority of issues... this of course excludes people who just don't really think much about it and just plop their vote in where they always have... or where it's "hip" with their crowd.

@Doc_M, to rephrase what you're saying in a way that's perhaps more objective, it's certainly true that a much larger percentage of conservatives are likely to answer "I don't trust either party" in polls, even if they reliably go into the voting booths to give the Republican party power.

The big problem is that they don't find that to be contradictory in the slightest.

I also think you're entirely wrong about Republicans being more wary of their leaders. When conservatives tell their followers something blatantly false like "tax cuts increase revenue", you all fall in line, and either defend, or at least refuse to repudiate it as false.

When Obama says something that's merely positively spun like "this historic health care legislation will bring care to tens of millions more Americans", he gets ripped apart by the left saying "but not as many as would've gotten it with single payer, corporate sellout!"

Maybe I'm blurring the lines between trust and loyalty, but it seems like the right is always loyal to the Republicans and their mythology about conservative governance, whereas the left can't seem to muster the loyalty to just nod their heads in agreement to factually accurate statements with a positive spin.

And to reference another video--the boat goes on to vault over a toll booth.

http://videosift.com/video/Drunk-Driver-Launches-Off-Toll-Booth-Like-the-General-Lee