Fun With Paper

Yes, it’s not so surprising that Yamaha has fold-your-own paper models of, e.g., the SR400 (a motorcycle); more surprising is that they also have “paper crafts” of rare animals of the world (the Steller’s sea eagle, for instance) and of Japan (like the Hondo stoat).

Another place to go for paper crafts is The Flying Pig, I kid you not. There are some things you can buy, but also some you can download free, like the agreeable sheep. You need to cough up an e-mail address…

But seriously: an agreeable sheep. Don’t you think it’s worth the hassle?

That’s what I thought.

(FYI, the “agreeable sheep” is a kind of nodding sheep on a pedestal, with a clever lever to solicit cheerful, agreeable nods.)

Of course we can’t really talk about fun with paper without at least brushing on the topic of paper airplanes. And if you’re going to make a paper airplane, you might as well settle for the best paper airplane in the world.

by on November 22, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 22, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/fun-with-paper/

Somewhat Controlled Impact Demo

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center has a gallery of digitized video clips of some experimental and/or historically significant aircraft.

Possibly more unique than the SR-71 (that would be the Blackbird) or Mars Rover is the video of a Controlled Impact Demonstration (pictured right) wherein a Boeing 720 was intentionally crashed in order to record the results.

Is harrowing the right word?

(originally via BoingBoing, w/ some additional sniffing around to find the details)

by on November 22, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 22, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/somewhat-controlled-impact-demo/

A success story!

A success story, but not the right kind of success story.

This one’s a story of successful lobbying by Syngenta, which apparently learned the lessons of bad publicity.

Faced with a potential ban on an herbicide it produces (what herbicide is used on 2/3 of corn in the U.S. and 90% of sugarcane), Syngenta spent $260,000 lobbying various governmental entities.

On October 31—the date suggested by the lobbying firm of Alston & Bird—the EPA agreed to re-register the herbicide.

Low levels of the herbicide

“chemically castrate and feminize” male frogs, fish and other wildlife. Students first noticed deformed frogs in 1995 in a farm pond near Henderson, Minn.

And then there’s the fact that men working near the chemical have a higher risk of prostate cancer, and the tentative link between the herbicide and cancer (in, what else, laboratory animals).

Yay.

(via Gristmill, with excerpts/info from AP: “Company spent $260,000 lobbying for herbicide,” by Frederic Frommer [October 27, 2004])

by on November 20, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 20, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/a-success-story/

Instant, eh?

instant death - $200 fine

(via BoingBoing)

by on November 18, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 18, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/instant-eh/

What fake news?

Snippets from the Annenberg Survey, the results of which you may or may not have heard re: Daily Show viewers:

Young people who watched The Daily Show scored 48% correct on the campaign knowledge test while young people who did not watch any late-night comedy scored 39% correct. Meanwhile, young people who watched four of more days of network news scored 40% correct, equally frequent cable news viewers 48% correct and newspaper readers 46% correct.

…

A content analysis of late-night comedy content conducted on Leno, Letterman, and Stewart monologues and headlines from July 15 through Sept. 16 indicates that 33% of jokes made by Stewart during the show’s “headlines” mentioned at least one policy issue, compared to 24% of Leno’s monologue jokes and 21% of Letterman’s.

(Business Journal: “No Joke: Daily Show Viewers Follow Presidential Race” [September 21, 2004]; view the entire press release, along with various tables, @ the Annenberg Public Policy Center official release [PDF])

by on November 16, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 16, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/what-fake-news/

Who’s looking out for you?

Google saves a man’s life; The Weather Channel could have prevented a woman from falling off a second-floor balcony (although possibly not, too).

The second “could have” is a little gimmicky, since it refers to the fact that the woman fell while step outside to check the weather. Whoever wrote the article’s headline presumably thought that, had the woman been watching the Weather Channel, she never would have stepped out onto the faulty balcony. And hence not fallen. Go figure. (I was initially conned by the headline, thinking that a woman was in fact saved by the Weather Channel.)

The first is less gimmicky, more genuine, and not a little startling: a journalist was captured in Iraq and released in part thanks to Google. His captors thought he was a CIA operative. He said he was an Australian journalist. They Googled his name and found out he was telling the truth. Let him go, they did. Which all makes an interesting story, though presumably there was more to it than that. I’m no expert in spycraft, and the CIA may have its problems, but I’m guessing [see above, “no expert”] that the Agency could with relative ease make an informant seem like a reporter, particularly if all that was required was adjusting a few web pages.

by on November 16, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 16, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/whos-looking-out-for-you/

Promiscuous Failure

In the American Prospect, Harold Koh writes:

In no small part because of its promiscuous failure to ratify a convention with which it actually complies in most respects, the United States rarely gets enough credit for the large-scale moral and financial support that it actually gives to children’s rights around the world. [emphasis added]

I only point this out to be petty and small, as I have no real stake in how words are misused. But promiscuous? There’s really no sense of the word that makes sense in this particular context.

Barring a “creative” use of the word–which is not totally out of the question—I think the author means something along the lines of prominent, or conspicuous (which, when combined, yield something surprisingly close to promiscuous, [promi…]+[…spicuous]= promispicuous).

My point, aside from being small, is also to bring to light the fact that such misuse undermines the presumed validity of the article. I.e., as long as there are no incredibly conspicuous errors, you’re more likely to defer to the author’s opinions, or at least adapt you own viewpoints slightly. Phrases like “national prerogative” and “international adjudications” tend to make you think the author knows what he’s talking about.

And, let’s be honest. I doubt that a simple mistake means the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But one simple mistake is all it takes to force the reader to re-evaluate everything the author’s written, at least in that particular article/essay/etc.

When you’re trying to be persuasive, you can’t afford a simple misuse.

(apologies to American Prospect: “On America’s Double Standard,” by Harold Koh [October 1, 2004])

by on November 16, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 16, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/promiscuous-failure/

Platypus Trivia

In most mammals, including humans, sex is decided by the X and Y chromosomes: two Xs create a female, while XY creates a male. In birds, the system is similar: ZW makes for a female, while ZZ makes for a male.

But in platypuses, XXXXXXXXXX creates a female, while XYXYXYXYXY creates a male. In other words, rather than a single chromosome pair, platypuses have a set of ten-chromosomes that determine their sex.

(NewScientist: “Platypus sex is XXXXX-rated,” by Rachel Nowak [October 24, 2004])

by on November 14, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 14, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/platypus-trivia/

TiddlyWiki

TiddlyWiki is non-linear. I like it. The name is abhorrent. The uses are endless, yet nonexistent. What’re you gonna do?

(via MeFi)

by on November 14, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 14, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/tiddlywiki/

Aw, that’s just gorilla dust

Double-Tongued Word Wrester records words as they enter and leave the English language. It focuses upon slang, jargon, and other niche categories which include new, foreign, hybrid, archaic, obsolete, and rare words. Special attention is paid to the lending and borrowing of words between the various Englishes and other languages, even where a word is not a fully naturalized citizen in its new language.

by on November 12, 2004  •  Permalink
Posted by Ben on November 12, 2004

https://www.swordbilled.com/aw-thats-just-gorilla-dust/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »