In Texas in the 70’s we had The Banana Splits, a gang of wacky mascots, that hosted Hanna Barbera cartoons.
Where/when was Wake Rattle and Roll aired?

The first time I flew to Iceland on the aptly-named Iceland Air, the "entertainment" consisted of the entire catalog of Sigur Ros and Bjork. The seat-back screens in the cheap seats had a list of movies that an old UHF channel would have turned its nose up at, and an endless loop of four commercials for wonderful Iceland -- in Icelandic -- that you couldn't turn off. They also insisted in asking people to pay in isk for Icelandic food, which was both a novelty, an annoyance and a source of nausea all in one.
That said, it was better than Air France by a long shot.

Unpack the court, it’s packed with unqualified fraudulent unscrupulous appointments now.

Democrats hold control now, and can make the court have as many seats as they like. Shitty, but those are the rules…rules they should change as soon as they take advantage of them. Not unconstitutional. No whining like you normally do….like you are now….crybaby.

Not holding a hearing when the constitution says they “shall”, not they “may choose not to until their party makes the nomination”, is unconstitutional and not following the “rules”, on top of being hypocritical, unethical, and immoral. He wasn’t denied the position by vote, like Bork, he was denied the constitutionally required hearing and vote he was constitutionally guaranteed.

Left of center, yes, but centrists. You clearly don’t know what that means. Holy shit.
Rabid leftists? far from it. You can’t say the same for the right leaners, they are extremist far right wing activist judges, out of touch with the majority of the country and the law. One is a blatant unapologetic rapist, another a dishonest religious zealot with no judicial experience.
I didn’t expect a respected serious jurist like RGB, but didn’t expect people less respectable and less serious than ODB.

I overstate! LMFAHS!! Hilarious coming from the bombastic liar completely divorced from reality that overstates everything that he doesn’t just completely make up.
If overstating everything, desperate to prove himself at every instance makes one a miserable poser and a child looking for approval, why are you so in love with and a zealous follower of a desperate miserable poser child begging for approval, namely Trump?
🤦‍♂️

I must have hit a real nerve to get you this triggered, Snowflake. Whine like a spoiled little girl some more, bobby. Your Trumpist tears are delicious….and your broken English blather makes an entertaining, if fact free, read.

Edit: more good news for ya….the DC appellate court just ruled unanimously that Trump has no say in the release of White House documents surrounding Jan 6 (or any others). The unanimous ruling makes it unlikely the Supreme Court will even consider it. We’re going to see what he’s so terrified will come to light, his complicity in the attempted coup, and exactly what he expected to come from it. Hint, it’s not what he’s been telling you.
Oh, and it sounds like there may be more obstruction of justice investigations since Trump admitted he fired Comey to derail the investigation, and if he hadn’t he would have been convicted and removed from office. His words. Not smart to admit on the air.
Aaaaaand, the full, unedited by Barr, Mueller report may be released soon. The one the investigators wrote before the one they released, including all their findings that Barr apparently refused to accept, allegedly containing lots of never before released findings, charges,evidence, and information. A FOIA request prompted the DOJ to begin vetting it for classified info, should be ready mid February. Not good for a Trump comeback, or Republican mid terms. D’oh! Don’t cry….don’t cry.

Yeah, 20000ft is roughly 6km. The air density is about 1/2 but from what I can determine that doesn't equal 1/2 air resistance, but something more like 90-95% air resistance of sea level.

Having said that, I haven't studied aerospace engineering, so I might be getting the details wrong.

There are definitely some minor advantages to building on a mountainside, but I don't think they outweigh logistical difficulties under normal circumstances.

The idea has a good bit of scifi (and probably scientific) history behind it though. I believe Heinlein used a railgun cargo launcher from the moon in Moon is a Harsh Mistress and a mountainside sled rocket in one of his earlier books.

Project Rho is a great resource for hard scifi and rocketry research for writers. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php is the link to a page that discusses maglev, railguns and rocketsleds.

In general I love the Ve channel, but I think this video does more to confuse people than to enlighten them.
Also, no mention of "holes" (even though that's more part of semiconductors).
Also, of the multiple-choice answers, there wasn't one corresponding to 80% speed of light which is the measured speed of electrical signal in copper (depends on the cable itself, frequency, and other factors).
And if all of the power actually travels through the air, then why does the ampacity of a cable matter at all? Tesla could be quick-charging with flimsy cat5 cable!

I’m thinking Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador…at over 20000 ft, it’s peak it the farthest from the center of the earth (while not being the highest above sea level thanks to the equatorial bulge).
Sure, it doesn’t remove air resistance or friction, but halving it, even cutting it by 1/3 is a massive leap in efficiency and negates much of the extreme engineering and materials needed to overcome the friction….plus, as you mentioned, there’s the rotational speed advantage from launching on the equator vs Florida.
Also, while extremely minor, there’s also a slight reduction in gravitational pull at those heights. A joule saved is a joule earned!

Using a mountainside might help with structural integrity, but it's not likely to give much air resistance advantage if I'm reading the math correctly. The 5 highest peaks in the US are all in Alaska and and range from just under 5km to just over 6km. Commercial jets using air resistance/density for lift fly at about 10km and even at 38km aerodynamic lift still carries 98% of the weight of the plane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line)

Air density is halved at 5km compared to sea level, but air resistance doesn't diminish as quickly (due to it being multiplied by velocity squared and drag coefficient), and only becomes irrelevant (for short-term purposes) around 100km at the Karman Line.

If we had a 5km peak in Florida, the lack of logistical costs might make the benefits worth it, and if we could build on one of Equador's 5km peaks, then there's the further advantage of equatorial location for optimal rotational advantage (part of the reason we launch from South Florida)

To be fair, it’s only meant to throw stuff to the point second stage rockets normally fire. Only 10000g….no problem, right?
Rail guns seem much more reasonable IMO. So does launching from a mountain top to avoid air resistance.

Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape"

Warning shots seem to be enough for you to allow this kid to kill someone because they are so threatening. Warning shots seem like a reasonable means of attempting to escape. Warning shots were not exhausted by Rittenhouse, who is stuck having to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before using deadly force per Wisconsin law because he was engaged in unlawful behavior during the incident. If he doesn't exhaust all reasonable means of escape, self defense cannot apply. If he claims the shot fired in the air is threatening, he acknowledges that it's a means of escape through intimidation. Checkmate, dumbass.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

Absolutely not, IMO.
It’s not self defense if you hunt your victim, he did.
It’s not self defense if the people you shoot were not armed. You can’t use a gun in defense from a fist. He did.

It’s not self defense if you hear a pop (no shot was fired AT Rittenhouse, if the defense is to be believed, someone else shot into the air to get the gun toting aggressor to leave and stop threatening everyone with death). Rittenhouse had no idea if he heard a gun, firecracker, or plastic bag being popped.

It’s not self defense if you murder people trying to escape from the first murder you committed in public, the second and third victims were preforming legal citizens arrests on an armed, aggressive murderer attempting to flee the scene of his crimes.

What he did is 100% not self defense, if that idiotic defense works, it’s open season. All anyone has to do is say they had to shoot up that preschool, those kids were coming right for them….SHOOT EM NED!!

Hypothetical scenario….I had to shoot your family….I broke into your house because I thought you might do drugs in there, and I’m, on my own accord, protecting your town from drug users even though I have no authority, and when you yelled at me in your bedroom doorway and threw a clock it was scary, so I shot your wife and shot you in the dick and chest, then your kids came out screaming at me and one threw a doll, so I shot them too, then left without reporting any of it, and fled the state immediately. Self defense. Almost exactly the same thing.

If a jury accepts self defense in these circumstances, they are not impartial.
If a jury accepts a self defense claim, the next Trump rally is going to be a blood bath, and the attackers will claim self defense.
If a jury accepts a self defense claim, it will send a clear message that hunting humans for pleasure will be legal in the US, because that’s exactly what he did.

Lol. Such projection, Bob. Never anything to add to a conversation, so you fall back on silly, baseless, prepubescent insult. It’s totally divorced from reality, but it’s still funny watching you squirm.

You could only think there’s no factual information if you don’t/can’t read them. They are chock full of fact and citation, unlike your posts that have neither….ever.

And stop being coy, Bob. Every person here knows full well you read my posts like they were air and you were trapped underwater. I read yours like a tired garbage man who just found another pile of garbage they have to clean up.

Such sad and dishonest whining, little Bobby. If only you would grow up a little you could be childlike.

The guy trying to get the train to stop by jumping around and hollering is not something you generally see and hear in these type videos. The truck launching into the air is almost movie like.

@vil: Well, it's actually Bell herself that has a similar opinion:

https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr2030_12/sn/Bell.html

It has been suggested that I should have had a part in the Nobel Prize awarded to Tony Hewish for the discovery of pulsars. There are several comments that I would like to make on this: First, demarcation disputes between supervisor and student are always difficult, probably impossible to resolve. Secondly, it is the supervisor who has the final responsibility for the success or failure of the project. We hear of cases where a supervisor blames his student for a failure, but we know that it is largely the fault of the supervisor. It seems only fair to me that he should benefit from the successes, too. Thirdly, I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them. Finally, I am not myself upset about it – after all, I am in good company, am I not!

When the paper was published the press descended, and when they discovered a woman was involved they descended even faster. I had my photograph taken standing on a bank, sitting on a bank, standing on a bank examining bogus records, sitting on a bank examining bogus records: one of them even had me running down the bank waving my arms in the air. Look happy dear, you've just made a Discovery! (Archimedes doesn't know what he missed!) Meanwhile the journalists were asking relevant questions like was I taller than or not quite as tall as Princess Margaret (we have quaint units of measurement in Britain) and how many boyfriends did I have at a time?