I saw an ad for this thing on tv tonight; the Wilcraft ice fishing rig. “Because trucks don’t float.”
The ad aired during the Kent Hrbek Outdoors Show, and made me laugh out loud. I mean, a purpose-built $10,000 buggy made for rapid deployment for… ice fishermen?
Roll this bad boy off your trailer, drive out to your favorite spot (using your GPS, of course), drop the bottom down on the ice, pop up the tent top, drill a couple of holes and you’re in. Hear about a hot spot somewhere else on the lake? Pull in the lines, drop the tent top, lift the bottom, start the engine, and you’re off in seconds flat. Thin ice in between the spots? No problem. This baby floats. If the snow is deep, all you need is the optional Track System; next best thing to a snow cat.
I think some people have just too much time & money on their hands. How long until we get photos of a redneck-built version, made from a jonboat and an old 4-wheeler?
Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?
Of course the plane is going to take off. The wheels are only there to hold the plane up and allow it to roll freely when it’s on the ground. So many people spouted off on that original post displaying nothing but ignorance. They figured the airplane accelerates down the runway the same way a car does, with the wheels doing the work. But with an aircraft, the propeller or jet engine provides rearward thrust, and will move the plane down the runway/conveyer belt with no problem. The only thing that would keep the plane from taking off is if you also tied the aircraft down so it could not gain forward momentum.
This question has been beat to death everywhere on the Internet. Just do a Technorati search on the topic. It’s so very sad to see so many otherwise intelligent people get sucked in by a stupid puzzle like this. But the reason behind BoingBoing’s latest post on the subject is that Mythbusters is going to tackle the puzzle tonight to see what happens. No idea how they’ll do it — a scale model plane and suitably-sized conveyor belt, or full-size everything. Either way, it would be fun to watch. Too bad I don’t subscribe to cable TV & get The Discovery Channel. But it’ll be a matter of hours after the broadcast before it hits YouTube, so no worries.
But, yup; that puppy’ll fly. Guaranteed. Also guaranteed is that this stupid discussion will go on because many people just won’t the conclusion, and won’t want to admit that they were wrong.
Update: Of course, Mythbusters proved me right on both accounts, that the plane would take off (it did) and that there would be no conclusion to this inane debate. Here’s the YouTube video of the experiment:
Turns out that rather than building a huge conveyor belt for the experiment, they used a huge sheet of material pulled by a truck going in the opposite direction of the plane. Not perfect, but it works. Surprisingly, the pilot of the plane thought he’d “sit there like a brick” and not take off. That guy should have his license pulled.
As predicted, the plane did move forward with it’s wheels spinning twice as fast as its ground speed, and it got off the ground. Duh.
And as predicted, the controversy rages on. Mental Floss picked up the subject, and the comments show that people still just don’t get it. They’re reading all kinds of stuff into the original question that shouldn’t be there and finding all kinds of nonexistent flaws in the way that Mythbusters executed the experiment. Some guy even bought the domain name AirplaneOnATreadmill.com to help settle the issue, but from the comments left behind by readers, it’s obvious many just don’t get it.
But the one that really takes the cake is Cecil over at The Straight Dope; he got it right on his first try and did an admirable job of explaining it, but later on he twisted the question and proves, in a way, that the conveyor belt can indeed keep the plane on the ground. Yes, Cecil, given the conditions and theoretical equipment you present, you could keep the plane on the ground. But your theoretical equipment and conditions don’t conform to the parameters of the original question![exasperated sigh]
The smart set can even buy a t-shirt that expresses your thoughts on the subject, although I’m not sure how smart it is to spend $18 on a t-shirt. Don’t think I would anyway.
I don’t mean to come across as insulting or snobbish, but this puzzle is just not that difficult and all the arguing seems so silly to me. I guess this whole experiment proves that some people will not believe the truth regardless of the logic involved and the evidence presented. And that truth transcends to larger questions, even to faith in an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipowerful God.
Here’s a funny photo I found on eBay… It was on an auction for a 1959 Nash Metropolitan, in Minnesota. Dairy country, no doubt!
I’ve been looking half-heartedly for a project car; kinda thinking ahead to Ian getting his license in a year or so. It’d be fun to pick up something that needs a little work, spiff it up during the summer before his 16th birthday to help him gain a greater appreciation for whatever he’s driving. I doubt I’m up to a project like this little Nash, and I also doubt he’d be up to driving something like that in any condition, but it’s fun to look!. (here’s the eBay link, as long as it lasts.)
Once there were three sons — Milton, Marvin and Melvin. When the boys came of age, they each left home, went out on their own, and prospered.
Later in life they returned to reunite in the planning of their mom’s 75th birthday, and they each tried to outdo each other with an extravagant gift for Mom.
The first son, Milton, said, “For Mom’s birthday, I bought her a Mercedes Benz limousine and hired a chauffeur so that she can go wherever she wants and not have to worry about driving.”
The second son, Marvin, said, “I’m going to build Mom a huge house. No not a house, a mansion.”
The third son, Marvin, said with a smile, “I’ve got you both beat. You know how Mom enjoys the Bible, and how she can’t read very well anymore because of her eyesight? Well, I found this parrot that is able to recite the entire Bible. The parrot was trained by a team of monks over the course of twelve years; all I had to do was pledge $100,000 a year for ten years, and the parrot is Mom’s! With the parrot, all she has to do is tell it chapter & verse, and the parrot will recite it for her.”
Mom’s 75th birthday came and went, the gifts were received, and a thank you card was sent out to each son soon thereafter. The first thank you card went to her first son: “Milton: The house you built is much too big for me. I live in only one room but I have to clean the whole thing.”
The second card went to the second son, and read, “Marvin: I’m too old to travel much; I stay home all the time, so I never use the limousine. And the driver was so rude I fired him.”
And on the third card; “Dearest Melvin: You were the only son to have the good sense to know what your mother likes. That chicken you sent me was delicious.”
Who, me? Oh, not much. I’m very easy to please. Here’s a list…
a two-car garage,
a couple of vehicles that don’t have acres of rust on them,
a MIG welder, drill press and milling machine,
unlimited funds and sufficient time to finish some of the unfinished projects around the house,
40 pounds off my midsection,
a new MacBook Pro,
a new job,
hair like I had twenty years ago,
a river-side acreage somewhere near Sioux Falls,
time to read and write the way I’d like to,
a set of bagpipes and lessons,
cello lessons,
etc…
See? I really am easy to please. But man, do I hate hearing that question. Yes, there are some things I’d like to receive as gifts for Christmas, but generally when I really need something, I buy it for myself. Likewise if I really want something that isn’t too costly; for the costlier items, I bide my time for a windfall of some sort (and permission from the wife) before I buy. But the things that I’d like to have that I don’t purchase myself are also too costly to ask someone else to buy for me. Hence the reluctance to answer that question.
Every year for Christmas with Yvonne’s family we draw names and give gifts that way, and every year I get that question, and every year I have a tough time with it. I don’t want to throw out costly suggestions and possibly oblige someone to fork out a lot of money on me (although it would be nice), but then again the last thing I need is more stuff; clutter is already an issue around our house.
My family dispensed with the gift buying/giving/returning thing at our usually annual Thanks-Mas events years ago, and went to a White Elephant Gift Exchange. That has been a blast, with lots of gaudy not so favorites making repeat appearances year after year. I wish we could do that with Yvonne’s family too, but old traditions are hard to change.
One other hesitation I have about the whole White Elephant thing is that it mocks Christmas in a way; the whole gift giving thing is supposedly to honor the Greatest Gift of All, Jesus Christ, who was God’s gift to us. So does giving a known rotten gift mock that tradition? I dunno; haven’t quite made up my mind on that. What I do know is that the White Elephant is a lot of fun, doesn’t require anyone to spend a ton of money, and doesn’t (always) add more stuff to my house.
I wrote a while back about the World Vision Gift Catalog; actually, if someone is going to spend money on a gift for me, I’d actually rather have them spend it there rather than on me. Or if they really want to give me something, how about dinner with them. Doesn’t need to be anything fancy; just any old thing at your house or my house, along with an evening to converse & catch up.
I bumped into this in the classified ads at CarsOnline.com; very, very cool.
Asking price is $55,000, but I found another version of the ad where he’s asking $70k, so I’m thinking the price is pretty negotiable. Probably not negotiable to where I’d be able to afford it, but…
Here are the specs for the thing as listed in the ad. I wasn’t able to find any other info on the Fletcher Aviator through a Google Search, so could it be that this is the only one?
Fletcher Aviator. Custom built wing tank car. Same as used as bonneville land speed car of the 50’S and 60’S. Street legal car clear title. Built in the year 2006, Has never run at bonneville. This is a custom car just for the street.
Complete tube chassis straight axle front end
Willwood brakes all four corners
350 Chevy engine
350 Transmission
471 Blower
Franklin quick change rear end
Wheel vintique wire wheels
Wing tank F100 all aluminum
Apparently the body is made from the wing tank from an F100 Super Saber jet (photo of one mounted to the F100 here.) Too bad he didn’t keep the fins from the originals; that would’ve been a great addition! The ad also says he’s got more tanks available… If that don’t get the creative juices going…
Back in the early ’80’s I joined the South Dakota Air National Guard and went off to Basic Training, then on to technical training at Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS. During my six months at Keesler, one of my roommates was a Mormon guy from Utah by the name of Ira. Ira was a great friend during those months at Keesler, and had all kinds of stories to tell; one that stuck with me was about a friend or relative of his who made what were termed “bull pecker canes” (Ira’s words, not mine!) To make these canes, they would take the… um… reproductive organ of a slaughtered bull, run a steel rod down the middle (cringe), dry it, varnish it & finish it off with a fancy handle and foot.
With some of Ira’s stories, I never knew whether to believe him or not; no difference with this one. But today while browsing around the Sportsman’s Warehouse over a long lunch, guess what I found; a rack Bull Canes made by Ross Taylor Originals in Utah. And true to Ira’s tale…
Each of our canes, putters and jogging buddies are made from the reproductive organ of an American Buffalo or Domestic Bull. Yes, you heard it right…
As disgusting as they sound, the canes & walking sticks I saw are very nice. They’re fairly hefty, what with the 3/8″ steel rod running through the middle (cringe) and the brass handles. Prices are up there, $120 or so for a nice cane with inlaid buffalo nickels or Indian head pennies. You can also custom-order one with your own trinkets inlaid on the shaft.
The website says the canes are durable enough for a lifetime of use, and they look it. And I’m sure they’d be a fun conversation starter: “Nice cane! What kind of wood is that?” “Oh, it’s not wood, per se…”
Is there someone you know who is really hard to buy a gift for? I know a few people like that. They’ve got everything they need. Most anything they don’t have and might be on their Christmas list would likely be too expensive for me to buy for them, and anything that is within my budget they would probably just go & buy for themselves. I feel like anything I buy for them would be just another junk trinket that they’ll either put on a shelf & forget about, return, or throw out.
We received a gift catalog from World Vision in the mail last week, and I was struck by its uniqueness. It’s not exactly what you’d expect in a gift catalog; instead of the usual stupid little trinkets you see in any other catalog from any other mail order company, World Vision offers gifts that you can give in someone’s name that can really make a difference.
Your gift can provide animals for needy people, shelter & warmth, health care, clean water, nourishing food… Some of the gifts are quite affordable; five ducks cost only $30 and will provide eggs to eat and ducklings to sell. Others can be quite costly; a fresh water well costs $5,390, but World Vision gives you the opportunity to buy a share in that gift, so that together with several other givers you can be a part of providing clean water to a huge number of people. Having visited Africa, I know firsthand what kind of water people drink in third-world countries, and this is something that would make a huge impact.
You can purchase a gift through the website, or you can go there to request a catalog (or a hundred if you want to distribute them) and order by phone. Your gift-ee will receive a card from World Vision detailing what was given in their name.
We just watched “A Charlie Brown Christmas” on TV last night, and it’s interesting that even back then Charles Schultz was railing against the commercialism of Christmas. Most stores had their Christmas stuff on display in September already. It seems to happen earlier every year, with the constant drumbeat of how the Christmas shopping season is sink-or-swim time for retailers, and a major indicator for the US economy. All that is just a detraction from what Christmas is all about; I’m totally with Linus on his explanation on the subject:
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them,
Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
Watch and enjoy the scene on YouTube, or click here to listen to the audio only.
I ate my first lobster earlier tonight, and I must say it’s a terribly overrated experience. I was far from impressed.
I was invited to this banquet, and the main course was lobster. I wasn’t thrilled with the idea, but decided to go ahead for the adventure. And now, here I sit, four hours later with my stomach making horrible groaning noises, feeling like it’s right at the back of my throat, ready to launch lobster all over my keyboard. Ugh.
The lobster I ate probably wasn’t the freshest specimen on the planet — I live in South Dakota, so the poor guy was probably been cooped up in a small tank for the last month or so. When he took his final dive, I doubt he was at his best. But you know, the meat itself didn’t taste too bad, but then again it didn’t taste too good either. In fact, there really wasn’t much flavor to it that I recall. What I do recall is the green stuff. When the critters were served and the first one cracked open, someone said, “Don’t eat the green stuff.” No worries there; it looked like something that came out of the wrong end of an alien. And that was probably my biggest problem with the whole experience. Seeing the entrails all boiled to mush and falling on my plate.
I don’t mind the sight of the insides of animals, really I don’t. But in my mind there is this separation between gutting something and eating it. The way it’s supposed to work is you kill the animal, cut it open, take out it’s guts, clean the carcass, then cook it. That I can handle. But combining the gutting with the eating… That’s too much.
Things have settled down considerably now, so I think I’ll make it. Besides, it didn’t taste too great going down the first time, so I would imagine that the return trip would be so very much more unpleasant. I just hope the muscling-past-the-gag-reflex strategy works.
