Random News not worthy of own thread

[Hank001]

Okay guys. Thanks I needed a laugh!

Okay and don't give me any jokes over the name.

The Icecube Detector:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_N ... bservatory

Far away at South Pole...

Some observatories look inward to the very small...
(Well different strokes for different folks )

Edit: Back at the campus waiting another series of lectures
(Have to break at 10am local for doctor's appointment and back in time for my lecture on NEOs)

No a layman can't get data feeds from ICD but you can pull data on Near Earth Objects:

https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/

While your there you can subscribe to JPL's newsletter. Comes to your email every Friday. Plenty of links.

Yesterday's lecture on the neutrino was too ad-hoc and went right into theoretical physics hence by denigrating the entire episode as it's our yearly Astronomical conference and most of us are optical types on overwatch and the lecture was just an FYI that got out of control. (Mostly becase it was given the the department head)

All made better by the fact that weather is supplying so much atmospheric haze as to make only the highest magnitude stars and planets visible at night and this is expected to continue well into August. Which is why the conferences are in July.

You can expect a group of us... if not MOST of us to break off and head across campus to watch CSPAN and the Strzok hearings with the Pol Sci people. They're recording it for me while I tell all the young stargazers what a busy place are neighborhood is and show off what a 24" reflecting HDCCD telescope can do.

[clakclak]

Chicago police settles for $2.5 million after police aimed a loaded gun at a three year old during an arrest.

My question really is, who in their right mind aims a gun at an unarmed three year old. Someone on this forum once gave gun safety instructions and I am pretty sure one of the rules was to not aim at something you don't plan to shoot.

EDIT: Actually scratch that, even if the kid would have a gun, shooting it would not be an acceptable option.

[Hank001]

@ clakclak

Why everyone knows todders in Chicago are
all packing heat and are notorious gangland
thugs. Apt to pull a gun right out of thei training
pants and blow you away.

Welcome to policing in the nation with the
highest incarceration percentaage in the world.

[Morkonan]

@ clakclak

Why everyone knows todders in Chicago are
all packing heat and are notorious gangland
thugs. ...

The most destructive force in the room is a toddler with a purpose... That officer was lucky!

(It's just nuts. I wonder if the officer was so hyped up on adrenaline that they just lost perspective, seeing threats everywhere. There's no reason to point a gun at a toddler who isn't likely to be able to comprehend any instructions or comply with an officer's demand, which is why the officer would likely be pointing a gun at them in the first place, since it's not likely the toddler was an imminent threat. Gotta be "nerves" or something.)

1 - "...When the council's finance committee approved the settlement earlier, a city lawyer agreed with many of the core claims in the lawsuit, telling the committee that the girl remains traumatized and will likely require psychiatric treatment into adulthood..."

This, though, is... a bit of B.S. IMO. "require psychiatric treatment into adulthood." Uh, that's highly doubtful unless they just simply beat the events into her little brain every darn day for the rest of her life.

[clakclak]

@ clakclak

Why everyone knows todders in Chicago are
all packing heat and are notorious gangland
thugs. ...

[...]

1 - "...When the council's finance committee approved the settlement earlier, a city lawyer agreed with many of the core claims in the lawsuit, telling the committee that the girl remains traumatized and will likely require psychiatric treatment into adulthood..."

This, though, is... a bit of B.S. IMO. "require psychiatric treatment into adulthood." Uh, that's highly doubtful unless they just simply beat the events into her little brain every darn day for the rest of her life.

Not a psychologist but I assume that right there is the difference between a $100.000 settlement and a $2.5 million dollar settlement. It seems pretty obvious that focusing heavily on the trauma (and potentially overplaying it) was a strategy by the lawyer of the family.

[Morkonan]

Not a psychologist but I assume that right there is the difference between a $100.000 settlement and a $2.5 million dollar settlement. It seems pretty obvious that focusing heavily on the trauma (and potentially overplaying it) was a strategy by the lawyer of the family.

Absolutely. And, the possible overstatement of the impact of the event casts a shadow over the conclusions a little bit, too. IOW, the lawyer "pushing for everything they can get" taints the whole series of events, IMO. The attorney likely gets a nice hefty chunk of any settlement deal...

Not saying all these things didn't happen (I don't know anything other than what was in that article), but these sorts of things don't help the overall situation. Was the child traumatized? Maybe? For life? Doubtful, but I don't know all that happened.

[felter]

Something the lawyer dood said:

The police have not been trained how to interact with young children especially young children of colour'

What the hell difference does it make what colour a 3 year old kid is, they are still a kid and should be treated the exact same way, skin colour does not come into it.

[Hank001]

Now let me see.
Point gun at liitle girl
while smacking around
her handcuffed mom.

Oookkklaaayyy

Now I guess you see why
so much enrollment here
comes from Chicago. 350+
miles away to the north of
the state.

[clakclak]

Not a psychologist but I assume that right there is the difference between a $100.000 settlement and a $2.5 million dollar settlement. It seems pretty obvious that focusing heavily on the trauma (and potentially overplaying it) was a strategy by the lawyer of the family.

Absolutely. And, the possible overstatement of the impact of the event casts a shadow over the conclusions a little bit, too. IOW, the lawyer "pushing for everything they can get" taints the whole series of events, IMO. The attorney likely gets a nice hefty chunk of any settlement deal...

Not saying all these things didn't happen (I don't know anything other than what was in that article), but these sorts of things don't help the overall situation. Was the child traumatized? Maybe? For life? Doubtful, but I don't know all that happened.

I do have to disagree with the statement that an overstatement of the trauma throws a shadow on the conclusion. It may cast a shadow on the amount that was paid out, but I really don't think that it changes anything about the situation. We are still talking about a police officer aiming a gun at a three year old.

Also, the lawyer is doing what he is supposed to do, try to get the best possiable outcome for his client within the boundries of the legal system. It is fair to assume that he had some type of psychological report to underline his claims of the girl suffering due to the behaviour of the police officer. If he overstated it and got away with it, than that says more about whoever was working in favour of the police than about him.

[Morkonan]

I do have to disagree with the statement that an overstatement of the trauma throws a shadow on the conclusion. It may cast a shadow on the amount that was paid out, but I really don't think that it changes anything about the situation. We are still talking about a police officer aiming a gun at a three year old.

Also, the lawyer is doing what he is supposed to do, try to get the best possiable outcome for his client within the boundries of the legal system. It is fair to assume that he had some type of psychological report to underline his claims of the girl suffering due to the behaviour of the police officer. If he overstated it and got away with it, than that says more about whoever was working in favour of the police than about him.

I don't know the facts of the case to truly make a decision on that. But, there are plenty of times when it seems public opinion is ramped up in order to obtain a financial judgement and, responding to that increased tension and exposure, public servants may give in to award damages that seem, at times, excessive.

Will have to look it up, perhaps, just to clear my brain of it.

PS - Yes, the lawyer is doing what he should attempt to do, so I agree. But, they're not always doing it altruistically, fulfilling their duty as the client's representative. There's big money in that award for the attorney's contingency fees, I bet.

[felter]

Lets re-invent the wheel.

[Hank001]

@ felter

Hey I wish I'd had wheels like that on that @$!# Humvee I used to drive in the service! I'd imagine the extra traction of the triangular shape would have kept me from standing in mud up to the knees to hook up the wench to some handy tree.

[Alan Phipps]

Interesting concept.

I don't think they'd be much good when you need to get somewhere (else) in a hurry as they don't seem very speed-capable. Also I don't think they would cope too well (as currently implemented) with particular sizes/types of gravel/shale that work their way inside the tracks and then interlock against the sprockets, bogeys and idlers.

Lifetime of the flexible track could be an issue too.

Their real cleverness is their in-use wheel reconfiguration which sort of echoes the ability to vary contact ground pressure on the move through controlled inflation/deflation of standard wheel tyres.

Perhaps the wheel of the future will not be a wheel & tyre at all, but just be a ground-effect.

[Hank001]

@ Alan Phipps

Looking again at the vid I take your point about gravel.
As for GEV (Ground Effect Vehicles) If you read syfi
the two big proponents of them are David Drake and Ben Bova
and both pointed out the problems with the concept as far as
power vs weight. Unless your talking hovercraft. The problem
there takes some thought. In the US their use was restricted
to off road only as they pose a huge traffic control problem since
stopping at stop signs, etc.... a quick stop is a problem. As of now
in the US the question was settled as they are regulated as a form
of aircraft. How do I know? 3D Design program wanted to build one and after facing the issues settled on a conventional four wheeled vehicle. (And found the state inspection system is against clearing any "homebuilt" vehices except motorbikes from the road.)

[Morkonan]

@ felter

Hey I wish I'd had wheels like that on that @$!# Humvee I used to drive in the service! I'd imagine the extra traction of the triangular shape would have kept me from standing in mud up to the knees to hook up the wench to some handy tree.

IIRC, that's a proof-of-concept demo. The wheels have too many moving parts to be practical and as soon as a rock gets in there... Humvee could probably make better use of a seat-cushion.

Some of the other wheels were neat, but that last one... Srsly? That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Uh, well, no, 'cause I've seen a lot of dumb things and have been responsible for half of them. But, still, it's pretty dumb and I am an expert!

[Hank001]

Morkonan posed:

But, still, it's pretty dumb and I am an expert!

Well don't hold your breath until it shows up on the tire racks.
It looks likes what I ended up saying 1000+ times. Great concept now tell me how your going to build it and cost it out. When you figure out that when the cost of four tires =/> the price of the vehicle then the wheels come flying off. Which means: Designs that the tech base can't economically produce are at best a mental exercise. At worse an exercise in futility.

[clakclak]

In other news, Larry Pratt and Philip van Cleave may be the most gullible humans on the planet. Also horrible people, but we knew that before.

Edit: I am sure over the course of the show MANY other people from all walks of life will fall for Cohans shenanigans.

[Hank001]

@ clakclak

I've seen that vid only in another forum for another reason.

Did you notice that the "Colonel" is CGI?
Take a closer look, he is.
The vid was featured in a 3D site showcasing
a new Full Motion Capture rig that does everything
that the old facial and body cap rigs did all in a single system. Produced for Showtime (Duh).

Though good. Look at the first interview. The lights on the real man leave reflections on the skin but since they didn't light match and adjust specular highlights, the Colonel's skin is flat toned.

Now I didn't see the kindergarten sequence and that has to be the real actor since details in the face and motion show how much mocap and texturing (No matter how good) looses.

Little wonder the mocap system was out of Isreal eh?
But on the second interview subtile errors crop up in the hand
gestures, but the huge killer is that sometimes the Colonel's hands-arms don't cast shadows. The problem is that the chair is real and what shadows there are from the Colonel's avatar were done in post production.

I'd like to link you to the site that showed the sort of "Making if", but it's a login only site and you can't link to anything but the login.

As for content? Brilliant. I want the Dino gun! Eat that candy @$!




What I can do is link you all to this:
A very related video.

I've been pranked!:

https://youtu.be/Z9LjwRRO9fk

Edit:

Spoiler

Show

The "Colonel" is Sasha Baron Cohen.

[clakclak]

@Hank001

I could find nothing about any of this being CGI anywhere online. Do you have more precise information? To me it simply looks as if he has a lot of makeup in his face.

As for the explantion Joe Walsh gave....come on, "Isreal is tough on defense"? That is why he endorsed a program to train 4 year olds in how to use mortars?

EDIT: Also if it was fake an CGI than Prett would probably have spoken out by now. After all this really doesn't reflect well on him, but he hasn't said anything. Seems pretty far fetched to me.

[Bishop149]

12 new Jovian moons discovered

Including one which is going the "wrong" way, so that's pretty interesting.
I do wonder about the definition of the term "moon" or even "moonlet" here. It seems like its essentially "Any object in a stable orbit around a body that our telescopes are powerful enough to see".
There must be some vague size based definition, no? . . . . otherwise Saturn could be said to have billions of "visible" "moons".