WestPundit
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Entertainment Trivia For 05/31/06
This character, one of the two protagonists from this classic film, was based upon blank - who's real name was blank - history's first living marketing icon.
The Answer:
This character; (Aunt) Delilah Johnson, played by Louise Beavers.
This classic film; Imitation of Life (1934).
Based upon; Aunt Jemima.
Who's real name was; Nancy Green.
Interestingly, Nancy Green had nothing to do with "Aunt Jemima" Pancake Flour (a creation of the defunct Pearl Milling Company); she just made good flapjacks, and fit the stereotype.
This character, one of the two protagonists from this classic film, was based upon blank - who's real name was blank - history's first living marketing icon.
The Answer:
This character; (Aunt) Delilah Johnson, played by Louise Beavers.
This classic film; Imitation of Life (1934).
Based upon; Aunt Jemima.
Who's real name was; Nancy Green.
Interestingly, Nancy Green had nothing to do with "Aunt Jemima" Pancake Flour (a creation of the defunct Pearl Milling Company); she just made good flapjacks, and fit the stereotype.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
The Mercurial Nature Of A Hollywood Career
I'm currently watching Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. And I can't help but reflect on what a harsh master Hollywood is...
1965 was a big year for films: We had The Sound of Music ($174m gross), Doctor Zhivago ($103m gross), Thunderball ($62m gross), and, in fourth place, was Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes. It grossed about $31m, a huge success, considering its $5.6m production budget. (#5 was That Darn Cat, at $28m.)
But what happened from there, for the show's stars? Of course, biggies Robert Morley, Red Skelton, Terry-Thomas, and Benny Hill, performed admirably in their secondary roles, and continued their successful careers thereafter. But Stuart Whitman was a constantly employed, but little-known character actor (mostly in westerns) going into this, and that's the life he returned to after. James Fox went on to a long string of second-billings, in second-rate films, like King Rat, Thoroughly Modern Millie, and A Passage to India.
A Passage to India is important here, as it was the swan song of one of cinema's greatest directors, David Lean - who also did Doctor Zhivago. But then he did Ryan's Daughter, starring the lovely Sarah Miles (Patricia Rawnsley from Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines). Ryan's Daughter had to be the biggest disappointment in Hollywood history - well, until Ishtar. And if it wasn't the professional death of Sarah Miles, one of Hollywood's most promising young starlets, The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing surely was.
Well, it is what it is, it was what it was.
Update: I can't let this post go without noting why, at least for me, this film still has magic - four decades later: Most of those flying shots are of actual aircraft - very liberal reproductions of their 1910 originals. It might be astounding to today's generation, but they didn't have CGI back in 1965.
I'm currently watching Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. And I can't help but reflect on what a harsh master Hollywood is...
1965 was a big year for films: We had The Sound of Music ($174m gross), Doctor Zhivago ($103m gross), Thunderball ($62m gross), and, in fourth place, was Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes. It grossed about $31m, a huge success, considering its $5.6m production budget. (#5 was That Darn Cat, at $28m.)
But what happened from there, for the show's stars? Of course, biggies Robert Morley, Red Skelton, Terry-Thomas, and Benny Hill, performed admirably in their secondary roles, and continued their successful careers thereafter. But Stuart Whitman was a constantly employed, but little-known character actor (mostly in westerns) going into this, and that's the life he returned to after. James Fox went on to a long string of second-billings, in second-rate films, like King Rat, Thoroughly Modern Millie, and A Passage to India.
A Passage to India is important here, as it was the swan song of one of cinema's greatest directors, David Lean - who also did Doctor Zhivago. But then he did Ryan's Daughter, starring the lovely Sarah Miles (Patricia Rawnsley from Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines). Ryan's Daughter had to be the biggest disappointment in Hollywood history - well, until Ishtar. And if it wasn't the professional death of Sarah Miles, one of Hollywood's most promising young starlets, The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing surely was.
Well, it is what it is, it was what it was.
Update: I can't let this post go without noting why, at least for me, this film still has magic - four decades later: Most of those flying shots are of actual aircraft - very liberal reproductions of their 1910 originals. It might be astounding to today's generation, but they didn't have CGI back in 1965.
As I don't know how to jigger the post time tag with Blogger just yet, readers should note the new hint on my last Entertainment Trivia puzzle.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Coffee Blogging 060516
This morning, my good friend, Glenn Reynolds, did this post, apparently because a lot of people would be interested in his opinion on coffee makers. Glenn, buddy - you know I love ya'. But please, stick to what you know. It sure ain't coffee makers. Here's his post, reproduced in full:
Well, if throwing your money away could be considered "going wrong," yes you can...
Let's get this straight here, I have not used either of these two. But what we have here are two simple drip coffee makers - no great technological mysteries here. And in this Glenn exposes his innocence on the subject. His judgment on how long coffee in the De'Longhi's carafe is acceptably warm is also in question - read on.
De'Longhi uses Melitta-type cone filters, which always have been, and always will be, more efficient than the Mr. Coffee-type used by Black & Decker. However, most supermarkets only have name-brand Melitta filters, which are VERY expensive, relative to generic Mr. Coffee-type filters. But you can get generic Melitta-type filters at Target or Wal-Mart.
As well, the De'Longhi has an integrated water prefilter. This might be of great value, particularly in Tennessee, where that lime-rich water seems to be great for making whiskey, but lousy for everything else. However, these prefilters need to be replaced every two months or so. So any economy realized from the efficiency of the design will be evaporated by the extra filter expense, even with cheap Folger's.
As for myself, I use bottled water. So the above is a moot point. What is more important is that, all other things being equal, a Melitta-type drip coffee maker will just always make fuller, richer coffee than a Mr. Coffee-type.
But then there is that "all other things" problem. J.D. at CoffeeGeek says of the De'Longhi DCM485, that the brew temperature (175 to 180 F) is just too low, and: "I ended up taking the DeLonghi DCM485 back to Starbucks." Couple that with a thermal carafe, and not only do you have weak coffee, in an hour or so you've got cold coffee. Personally, I don't like thermal carafes, for drip coffee (which I pretty much consider bulk consumption, rather than gourmet), as I like my coffee hot three or four hours later. So this is especially bad for me. Give me a well-regulated hot plate.
The Black & Decker isn't even in the same league - cross-shopping wise, as the $120 De'Longhi, I won't even bother with it. But the fact that it made weaker coffee than the cool-brewing De'Longhi (only so much can be accredited to the Melitta cone's natural superiority), doesn't speak well for it.
But why does any coffee maker, particularly a stupid drip coffee maker, have to cost a fortune? About two years ago, at Target, I bought a 12 cup Philips machine (Melitta-type), for about $40. It has been delightful. Both the brewing temp and hot-plate temp are spot-on. My only beef is that the hot plate shuts down in only an hour and a half. Here's CoffeeGeek's reviews on its current equivalent:
If you pay $120 for a stupid drip coffee maker, you are at least an idiot. And likely also something of a pretentious snob. You will never get gourmet coffee from a auto-drip - whatever the price. But you don't have to get lousy coffee.
This morning, my good friend, Glenn Reynolds, did this post, apparently because a lot of people would be interested in his opinion on coffee makers. Glenn, buddy - you know I love ya'. But please, stick to what you know. It sure ain't coffee makers. Here's his post, reproduced in full:
MORE COFFEEBLOGGING: Various people wanted followups on my earlier coffeemaker post, and, anticipating requests for more consumer-blogging, I have undertaken an actual in-home coffeemaker test.
I ordered this cheap Black & Decker model, which was warmly endorsed by many readers. And, at about the same time, someone from Starbucks offered to send me this more expensive DeLonghi that Starbucks sells. I've tried 'em both out for a few days, and even had some blind taste-testing at the Mother's Day bash here on Sunday.
Both are good. The Black & Decker wins hands-down for price and for its easy and uncomplicated user interface. (Yes, it's the 21st Century and coffee pots have user interfaces.) It's easy to program and use, and the "Perfect Pour" carafe doesn't spill or dribble. It keeps the coffee hot enough, but doesn't burn it.
The DeLonghi has a thermal carafe. It's not hard to program it or set the clock, but it's not as easy as the Black & Decker. Any idiot can figure out the Black & Decker, while some folks might need to look at the manual to figure out the DeLonghi. It has a thermal carafe, which also doesn't dribble or spill. It keeps the coffee hot enough for two or three hours; after that it's a bit cool for my taste, though it takes a while longer to get down to lukewarm. It's easy to fill with water and coffee, too.
So how's the coffee? It's good from both. The Black & Decker -- as seems common with the coffeemakers that use basket-type filters -- tends to come out a bit on the weak side. You can make up for that by adding more coffee, but if you do that you may find that the savings on the pot is offset by the expense of extra coffee.
The DeLonghi makes excellent coffee, stronger and more full-bodied on the same amount of coffee than the Black & Decker. In our blind taste tests, everybody -- including my brother-in-law Joe Smith, a former coffeehouse mogul here in Knoxville -- pronounced coffee from both pots good, but the coffee from the DeLonghi richer and fuller-bodied, with more coffee flavor. (I used identical amounts of Starbucks Sumatra for the test).
Conclusion: You can't go wrong, really, between these two. The Black & Decker is good, and cheap. The DeLonghi is better, but more expensive, though you might make that back via using less coffee, especially if you like expensive beans. And neither one dribbles or leaks, something that you ought to be able to take for granted in a coffeemaker but, alas, can't.
Well, if throwing your money away could be considered "going wrong," yes you can...
Let's get this straight here, I have not used either of these two. But what we have here are two simple drip coffee makers - no great technological mysteries here. And in this Glenn exposes his innocence on the subject. His judgment on how long coffee in the De'Longhi's carafe is acceptably warm is also in question - read on.
De'Longhi uses Melitta-type cone filters, which always have been, and always will be, more efficient than the Mr. Coffee-type used by Black & Decker. However, most supermarkets only have name-brand Melitta filters, which are VERY expensive, relative to generic Mr. Coffee-type filters. But you can get generic Melitta-type filters at Target or Wal-Mart.
As well, the De'Longhi has an integrated water prefilter. This might be of great value, particularly in Tennessee, where that lime-rich water seems to be great for making whiskey, but lousy for everything else. However, these prefilters need to be replaced every two months or so. So any economy realized from the efficiency of the design will be evaporated by the extra filter expense, even with cheap Folger's.
As for myself, I use bottled water. So the above is a moot point. What is more important is that, all other things being equal, a Melitta-type drip coffee maker will just always make fuller, richer coffee than a Mr. Coffee-type.
But then there is that "all other things" problem. J.D. at CoffeeGeek says of the De'Longhi DCM485, that the brew temperature (175 to 180 F) is just too low, and: "I ended up taking the DeLonghi DCM485 back to Starbucks." Couple that with a thermal carafe, and not only do you have weak coffee, in an hour or so you've got cold coffee. Personally, I don't like thermal carafes, for drip coffee (which I pretty much consider bulk consumption, rather than gourmet), as I like my coffee hot three or four hours later. So this is especially bad for me. Give me a well-regulated hot plate.
The Black & Decker isn't even in the same league - cross-shopping wise, as the $120 De'Longhi, I won't even bother with it. But the fact that it made weaker coffee than the cool-brewing De'Longhi (only so much can be accredited to the Melitta cone's natural superiority), doesn't speak well for it.
But why does any coffee maker, particularly a stupid drip coffee maker, have to cost a fortune? About two years ago, at Target, I bought a 12 cup Philips machine (Melitta-type), for about $40. It has been delightful. Both the brewing temp and hot-plate temp are spot-on. My only beef is that the hot plate shuts down in only an hour and a half. Here's CoffeeGeek's reviews on its current equivalent:
Jason Johnston: "All the top end drip machines really don't measure up to Philips! They do 'make things better.'"
Scott Burton: "Best auto-drip I've ever had."
Linda Langille: "Looks good on the kitchen counter - very good coffee too."
J Gabel: "Superb coffeemaker especially at $39.99!"
If you pay $120 for a stupid drip coffee maker, you are at least an idiot. And likely also something of a pretentious snob. You will never get gourmet coffee from a auto-drip - whatever the price. But you don't have to get lousy coffee.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Engine/Transmission Package Dimensions
I encountered this somewhere on the web, and thought I'd post it here, for future reference. My thanks go to Mr. Williams, you obviously did a lot of research to create this.
I don't know Mr. Williams. But we should all (especially the fabricators/swappers) be most grateful to him for compiling this handy list. Perhaps it should be made into a wiki?
I encountered this somewhere on the web, and thought I'd post it here, for future reference. My thanks go to Mr. Williams, you obviously did a lot of research to create this.
|
I don't know Mr. Williams. But we should all (especially the fabricators/swappers) be most grateful to him for compiling this handy list. Perhaps it should be made into a wiki?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Creative Way To Fill A Need
While, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr is concerned about well-heeled college applicants gaining an "unfair" advantage by hiring admissions consultants, this self-described "cute college grad" feels her chances for success in her journalism career would be better if she had bigger breasts. So she is advertising for the $3000 for augmentation surgery. Think she'll get it?
Update: I see Craigslist has removed the ad. Well, tough luck, chickie. :)
While, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr is concerned about well-heeled college applicants gaining an "unfair" advantage by hiring admissions consultants, this self-described "cute college grad" feels her chances for success in her journalism career would be better if she had bigger breasts. So she is advertising for the $3000 for augmentation surgery. Think she'll get it?
Update: I see Craigslist has removed the ad. Well, tough luck, chickie. :)
Monday, May 08, 2006
This is the second installment of what I intend to be a series of posts on alternative vehicle fuels if you are new, check here for inst. #1.
Biofuels: Ethanol
The great promise - the big lie
I had initially intended to do a single post on liquid biofuels (ignoring, for the moment, such things as biomass methane, which really stinks as a vehicle fuel). The three main contenders here are biodiesel, which is basically deesterified vegetable oil, from various sources, methanol, which, like methane, comes from sundry biomass sources, and ethanol, which, currently, comes from sugars and starches. (Also cellulose, but that's another matter - see below.) But even a brief treatment of all these would become feature article length in a heartbeat. As such, let us just concern ourselves with ethanol, which seems to be the current darling of both the pols and the MSM, for the moment...
Ethanol is created from the fermentation of sugar. That is important to keep in one's mind when contemplating ethanol production. Ethanol doesn't come from corn, at least not directly. First the starch has to be milled from the corn, and then converted to sugar, but let's worry about that later. Avoiding, for the present time, a course in basic organic chemistry, consider this: What we consider basic "table sugar" - disaccharide sucrose - consists of the constituent sugars: glucose and fructose. every molecule of ethanol from fermentation of glucose or fructose (C6H12O6) also yields a molecule of carbon dioxide:
C6H12O6 ====> 2(CH3CH2OH)+ 2(CO2)
This is important to remember, if one is to consider one's total carbon footprint. This came up a decade ago, with the short-lived electric car craze: as the electricity was frequently produced from the burning of fossil fuels, driving an electric car simply changes the point of production. So it is with ethanol, except now, rather than CO (ozone), it's CO2. Whatever, the production of ethanol produces massive amounts of CO2.
But that's sugar. And, here in the United States, with exception of Hawaii, and, to a lesser extent, Florida, we simply don't have the climate to grow sugar cane. Sugar also comes from other plants, most notably beets. And, while I haven't investigated the exact economics of this, I know we used to have a large sugar beet industry here in Orange County. I also know that, where beet sugar cheap to produce here in the US, we wouldn't have all those product labels listing "high fructose corn sweetener."
And don't you think, if we could produce sugar here in the US economically, we'd have been doing it long ago? Any student of the colonial period should know this: We owe our independence largely to the sugar industry in Latin America.
Well, now we are on to one of America's great staple crops: corn. Some have been saying that corn-based ethanol can "save us from foreign oil dependence." Some are even saying we can "replace gasoline with ethanol>"
Well, as for the latter, that is just absurd. Even President Bush has said, "You just got to recognize there are limits to how much corn can be used for ethanol. After all, we got to eat some." The fact is, if we converted our entire national corn production over to ethanol (and all our gasoline vehicles could handle it), we would just replace the gasoline supply. And that says nothing about diesel, home heating oil, etc.
Now, add to this the massive cost of creating sugar from corn. To create that ethanol requires an even greater fossil fuel input than it's worth. Coal producers are salivating at the new ethanol fad. And the enviro-leftists are starting to get this. But still, they don't get it. On the most recent installment of HBO's Real Time: Bill Mahr pronounced that since it costs us "nine times" as much to produce ethanol from corn as it does for Brazil to produce it from sugar cane, the fact that we are not buying ethanol from Brazil on "the corn lobby" (read: ADM).
Well, perhaps that's true. And man, I am no fan of Archer Daniels Midland. But we have to look at all these things in perspective. And that is being lost here. That was evident in tonight's episode of ABC's World News Tonight, where they unquestionably celebrated Brazil's "energy independence".
But wait a minute! Wasn't it just 5-10 years ago that we were deriding Brazil's destruction of the rain forest? And why was the rain forest being chopped down? To grow sugar cane, of course. The same can be said of Costa Rica, and most of the world's other sugar producers. And, of course, the cane fields are not nearly as good a carbon sink as the rain forest they supplanted. This says nothing about lost biodiversity.
So, we can't produce sugar cane economically in the temperate regions, and increasing cane production elsewhere in the world be an ecological catastrophe. And, we would just be switching dependence upon one set of questionable regimes for another. So, we are stuck with corn. But can't we just increase corn production? Well, perhaps. But we also have to consider that agricultural runoff has already turned Iowa's rivers to poison.
Then there's cellulose ethanol - which President *Switchgrass" Bush has brought to the forefront. This has some promise, as it can be made from biomass that is currently being discarded. But it is still an unproven technology. And, if this were the golden ticket that some make it out to be, then the question is begged, why is so much investment being in corn mills?
Biofuels: Ethanol
The great promise - the big lie
I had initially intended to do a single post on liquid biofuels (ignoring, for the moment, such things as biomass methane, which really stinks as a vehicle fuel). The three main contenders here are biodiesel, which is basically deesterified vegetable oil, from various sources, methanol, which, like methane, comes from sundry biomass sources, and ethanol, which, currently, comes from sugars and starches. (Also cellulose, but that's another matter - see below.) But even a brief treatment of all these would become feature article length in a heartbeat. As such, let us just concern ourselves with ethanol, which seems to be the current darling of both the pols and the MSM, for the moment...
Ethanol is created from the fermentation of sugar. That is important to keep in one's mind when contemplating ethanol production. Ethanol doesn't come from corn, at least not directly. First the starch has to be milled from the corn, and then converted to sugar, but let's worry about that later. Avoiding, for the present time, a course in basic organic chemistry, consider this: What we consider basic "table sugar" - disaccharide sucrose - consists of the constituent sugars: glucose and fructose. every molecule of ethanol from fermentation of glucose or fructose (C6H12O6) also yields a molecule of carbon dioxide:
C6H12O6 ====> 2(CH3CH2OH)+ 2(CO2)
This is important to remember, if one is to consider one's total carbon footprint. This came up a decade ago, with the short-lived electric car craze: as the electricity was frequently produced from the burning of fossil fuels, driving an electric car simply changes the point of production. So it is with ethanol, except now, rather than CO (ozone), it's CO2. Whatever, the production of ethanol produces massive amounts of CO2.
But that's sugar. And, here in the United States, with exception of Hawaii, and, to a lesser extent, Florida, we simply don't have the climate to grow sugar cane. Sugar also comes from other plants, most notably beets. And, while I haven't investigated the exact economics of this, I know we used to have a large sugar beet industry here in Orange County. I also know that, where beet sugar cheap to produce here in the US, we wouldn't have all those product labels listing "high fructose corn sweetener."
And don't you think, if we could produce sugar here in the US economically, we'd have been doing it long ago? Any student of the colonial period should know this: We owe our independence largely to the sugar industry in Latin America.
Well, now we are on to one of America's great staple crops: corn. Some have been saying that corn-based ethanol can "save us from foreign oil dependence." Some are even saying we can "replace gasoline with ethanol>"
Well, as for the latter, that is just absurd. Even President Bush has said, "You just got to recognize there are limits to how much corn can be used for ethanol. After all, we got to eat some." The fact is, if we converted our entire national corn production over to ethanol (and all our gasoline vehicles could handle it), we would just replace the gasoline supply. And that says nothing about diesel, home heating oil, etc.
Now, add to this the massive cost of creating sugar from corn. To create that ethanol requires an even greater fossil fuel input than it's worth. Coal producers are salivating at the new ethanol fad. And the enviro-leftists are starting to get this. But still, they don't get it. On the most recent installment of HBO's Real Time: Bill Mahr pronounced that since it costs us "nine times" as much to produce ethanol from corn as it does for Brazil to produce it from sugar cane, the fact that we are not buying ethanol from Brazil on "the corn lobby" (read: ADM).
Well, perhaps that's true. And man, I am no fan of Archer Daniels Midland. But we have to look at all these things in perspective. And that is being lost here. That was evident in tonight's episode of ABC's World News Tonight, where they unquestionably celebrated Brazil's "energy independence".
But wait a minute! Wasn't it just 5-10 years ago that we were deriding Brazil's destruction of the rain forest? And why was the rain forest being chopped down? To grow sugar cane, of course. The same can be said of Costa Rica, and most of the world's other sugar producers. And, of course, the cane fields are not nearly as good a carbon sink as the rain forest they supplanted. This says nothing about lost biodiversity.
So, we can't produce sugar cane economically in the temperate regions, and increasing cane production elsewhere in the world be an ecological catastrophe. And, we would just be switching dependence upon one set of questionable regimes for another. So, we are stuck with corn. But can't we just increase corn production? Well, perhaps. But we also have to consider that agricultural runoff has already turned Iowa's rivers to poison.
Then there's cellulose ethanol - which President *Switchgrass" Bush has brought to the forefront. This has some promise, as it can be made from biomass that is currently being discarded. But it is still an unproven technology. And, if this were the golden ticket that some make it out to be, then the question is begged, why is so much investment being in corn mills?
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Freedom of the Seas Launched
Royal Caribbean's Freedom of the Seas has just taken to the seas, as the world's largest Passenger Ship, eclipsing the Cunard (Carnival) Queen Mary II.
As I had noted in this TDB post, the Passenger Ship label is important, as FotS cannot be considered an Ocean Liner.
I had trivialized the differences in my earlier post; but they are actually significant. Indeed, the most notable differences are those of speed and endurance. And, should the FotS be confronted with a hurricane, before it could make it safely to port, it would likely endure, with minimal damage, and no hazard to it's passengers or crew. But a true Ocean Liner, like the QM2, is designed to do five days in 40' seas, restock in port, and go back to do the same over again.
As such, a true Ocean Liner must be built a bit heavier than a Cruise Ship. But, more importantly, it must have more of its mass closer to the center (notice how relatively short the superstructure of the QM2 is). This means that, despite the QM2 being slightly longer than the FotS, she displaces a bit less, and carries far fewer passengers.
None the less, two very grand ships.
Royal Caribbean's Freedom of the Seas has just taken to the seas, as the world's largest Passenger Ship, eclipsing the Cunard (Carnival) Queen Mary II.
As I had noted in this TDB post, the Passenger Ship label is important, as FotS cannot be considered an Ocean Liner.
I had trivialized the differences in my earlier post; but they are actually significant. Indeed, the most notable differences are those of speed and endurance. And, should the FotS be confronted with a hurricane, before it could make it safely to port, it would likely endure, with minimal damage, and no hazard to it's passengers or crew. But a true Ocean Liner, like the QM2, is designed to do five days in 40' seas, restock in port, and go back to do the same over again.
As such, a true Ocean Liner must be built a bit heavier than a Cruise Ship. But, more importantly, it must have more of its mass closer to the center (notice how relatively short the superstructure of the QM2 is). This means that, despite the QM2 being slightly longer than the FotS, she displaces a bit less, and carries far fewer passengers.
None the less, two very grand ships.
DARPA Grand Challenge 3
I would like to go on record here as saying that I would be interested in participating in, or forming, a team to compete in DARPA's "urban" Grand Challenge 3 (2 pages PDF). Instead of a course through the desert, this one is to be run through a mock city. It would seem that I was breed for this: My background as an engineer is in sensor and control systems. And I was brought up a car guy. Combine that with my organizational and sales skills - I think I'm a shoe-in.
Let's make no mistake: I have no intention of undertaking this as a hobby-shop project. Many of the entrants in the previous two Grand Challenges have been almost comically contrived shoestring affairs. I intend to make it my profession for the next eighteen months. This is to be approached as a coordinated, multi-disciplined development effort, with the added problem of fund-raising. Oh, and that $1 millon DARPA is offering is chump change, and likely not worth giving up "partial" rights. Anyone who's been involved in these sort of things knows a mil is a typical sort of budget for a factory to buy a major machine tool, or piece of processing equipment. Which is why we also need an attorney on board.
So much more to think about: my next step will be to review the actual PIP. The 10 mph standard seems like a cake-walk. But 10 mph in LA rush-hour traffic is good time; what are the exact parameters? The urban environment should be much easier than the desert of the past two challenges. But so much of this can be dealt with existing technology - GPS and collision avoidance - a major manufacturer tie-in would be helpful. All things in time.
This is just a feeler for interest. If you think you've got something to offer, please respond in comments or email.
Update: I've read the PIP, and a lot of my trepidations are settled. The requirements don't seem too daunting. Although I do have some questions about negotiating parking lots. More will be learned at the online conference on the 20th.
I would like to go on record here as saying that I would be interested in participating in, or forming, a team to compete in DARPA's "urban" Grand Challenge 3 (2 pages PDF). Instead of a course through the desert, this one is to be run through a mock city. It would seem that I was breed for this: My background as an engineer is in sensor and control systems. And I was brought up a car guy. Combine that with my organizational and sales skills - I think I'm a shoe-in.
Let's make no mistake: I have no intention of undertaking this as a hobby-shop project. Many of the entrants in the previous two Grand Challenges have been almost comically contrived shoestring affairs. I intend to make it my profession for the next eighteen months. This is to be approached as a coordinated, multi-disciplined development effort, with the added problem of fund-raising. Oh, and that $1 millon DARPA is offering is chump change, and likely not worth giving up "partial" rights. Anyone who's been involved in these sort of things knows a mil is a typical sort of budget for a factory to buy a major machine tool, or piece of processing equipment. Which is why we also need an attorney on board.
So much more to think about: my next step will be to review the actual PIP. The 10 mph standard seems like a cake-walk. But 10 mph in LA rush-hour traffic is good time; what are the exact parameters? The urban environment should be much easier than the desert of the past two challenges. But so much of this can be dealt with existing technology - GPS and collision avoidance - a major manufacturer tie-in would be helpful. All things in time.
This is just a feeler for interest. If you think you've got something to offer, please respond in comments or email.
Update: I've read the PIP, and a lot of my trepidations are settled. The requirements don't seem too daunting. Although I do have some questions about negotiating parking lots. More will be learned at the online conference on the 20th.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Entertainment Trivia For 05/03/06
Correlate these two people: Ida Lupino, Otto Preminger. And the answer isn't an actor, director, or other crew member with whom they both have worked (of which there are many).
Hint #1: Opera
Hint #2: Family Guy: Brian Wallows and Peter's Swallows
The Answer! They both directed take-offs on Georges Bizet's opera Carmen. For Preminger, it was the cinema classic Carmen Jones, starring the lovely Dorothy Dandridge. For Lupino, it was the TV classic, Gilligan's Island: The Producer, guest starring Phil Silvers.
Correlate these two people: Ida Lupino, Otto Preminger. And the answer isn't an actor, director, or other crew member with whom they both have worked (of which there are many).
Hint #1: Opera
Hint #2: Family Guy: Brian Wallows and Peter's Swallows
The Answer! They both directed take-offs on Georges Bizet's opera Carmen. For Preminger, it was the cinema classic Carmen Jones, starring the lovely Dorothy Dandridge. For Lupino, it was the TV classic, Gilligan's Island: The Producer, guest starring Phil Silvers.
May Day, 2006: Let me just go on record here as noting this as the day the tables tipped against Islamofascism.
How, exactly, I divined this prophecy, will have to wait for another day, as I am about to turn-in. But, mark my words: today is the tipping point.
How, exactly, I divined this prophecy, will have to wait for another day, as I am about to turn-in. But, mark my words: today is the tipping point.
Monday, May 01, 2006
