That is all.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
That is all.
Posted by jennyquarx at 2:00 PM
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Anyway, I was on the anti-registration side of Civil War and am a HUGE fan of Captain America. We have Iron Man and Spider-Man in addition to our many Supermen. I like to make Spider-Man kick Tony's ass because we currently have no clear cut bad guys and what fun is playing with action figures if they don't fight, right? So this is what actually came out of my mouth while playing with my one year old son:
"You see, Tony Stark has lots of money and built himself this rad suit. After a tragic event in Stamford, CT,the public goes hysterical, and the government decides that all superheroes must register with them. Superheroes who don't register are subject to punishment. Cap refuses to assist them so he has to go underground. At first Peter Parker is on Tony's side and publicly unmasks himself but soon realizes that he has made a mistake so he joins Cap's side. A lot of other crazy stuff happened, and I'm sure Tony meant well but all of this led to the death of Captain America so Peter is wicked angry and that is why he wants to beat up Iron Man."
A) Clearly I need help.
B) I think that might have been a little too much exposition.
C) Being a parent is awesome.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by jennyquarx at 3:16 PM
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
to use a Navy missile to attempt to destroy a broken U.S. spy satellite and thereby minimize the risk to humans from its toxic fuel by
intercepting it just before it re-enters the atmosphere, officials said
effort the first of its kind will be undertaken because of the
potential that people in the area where the satellite would otherwise
crash could be harmed, the officials said.
Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey, briefing reporters
at the Pentagon, did not say when the attempted intercept would be
conducted, but the satellite is expected to hit during the first week of March.
"This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings," Jeffrey said.
Gen. James Cartwright,
said at the same briefing that the "window of opportunity" for such a
shootdown, presumably to be launched from a Navy ship, will open in the
next three or four days and last for seven or eight days. He did not
say whether the Pentagon has decided on an exact launch date.
Cartwright said this will be an unprecedented effort; he would not say exactly what are the odds of success.
"This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft," Cartwright said.
After extensive study and analysis, U.S. officials came to the
conclusion that, "we're better off taking the attempt than not,"
He said a Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired in
an attempt to intercept the satellite just prior to it re-entering
Earth's atmosphere. It would be "next to impossible" to hit the
satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, Cartwright
A second goal, he said, is to directly hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth.
Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to
enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the
satellite is its target; he noted that the missile's designed mission
is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites. Other officials
said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not
great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.
"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the
modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S.
anti-satellite weapon technology.
Cartwright also said that if an initial shootdown attempt fails, a decision will be made whether to take a second shot.
Jeffrey said members of Congress were briefed on the plan earlier
Thursday and that diplomatic notifications to other countries would be
made before the end of the day.
Shooting down a satellite is particularly sensitive because of the controversy surrounding's anti-satellite test last year, when shot down one of its defunct weather satellites, drawing immediate criticism from the U.S. and other countries.
A key concern at that time was the debris created by Chinese
satellite's destruction and that will also be a focus now, as the
U.S. determines exactly when and under what circumstances to shoot down
its errant satellite.
The military will have to choose a time and a location that will
avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky.
Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and
either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or
possibly fall to .
It is not known where the satellite will hit. But officials familiar
with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is
expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will
scatter debris some of it potentially hazardous over several
hundred miles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of
the sensitivity of the matter.
The satellite is outfitted with thrusters small engines used
to position it in space. They contain the toxic rocket fuel hydrazine,
which can cause harm to anyone who contacts it. Officials have said
there is about 1,000 pounds of propellent on the satellite.
Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was
launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer
failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It
carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
Very Disturbing. I think they should have just tried this first and then told us if it failed, otherwise just kept it on the down low. I think by not giving odds of success they are saying, "The odds are just about as good as Bruce Willis' team of roughnecks saving the world by digging a giant hole in a meteor to place a nuclear bomb which was detonated just as the ship of survivors escaped, yet oddly the blast did not harm the ship or it's trajectory." I should just not read the internets.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by jennyquarx at 2:20 PM
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
So I forgot Pride and Prejudice was on last night because I was watching the Grammys. I'm not really one for epic love stories but everyone says I should watch P&P. Zac was reminded of Master P's Theatre's version which made me laugh but I digress.
The Grammys: What a waste of 3 1/2 hours. I do realize it was the 50th anniversary but it was really not cool to showcase old people like that. I do honor their contributions to music but I was especially creeped out by Jerry Lee Lewis singing "Great Balls of Fire." NOBODY on earth wants to see a 150 year old man singing about his great balls. That just felt like "let's make fun of the old guy" and was really sad. I did like Little Richard's hair. Zac commented that it looked like a cake decoration. He has a great makeup artist.
And Amy Winehouse. I apologize in advance if you are a fan of her or her idiotic song "Rehab." For the LONGEST time I thought that song was by a man. An African American man, not a skinny white chick. And Amy, your daddy is wrong. You're not fine. Nobody thinks you are fine. You were clearly on something last night. Pills maybe? I couldn't tell. That is not a good song, she is not a good singer, and it's not a good idea to celebrate drug abuse and lunacy by giving out awards. And I'm generally a fan of lunacy to a certain degree anyway.
I think I might offend all music fans with this one: Bruce Springsteen. I don't get him. Maybe you have to be from New Jersey to understand, I'm not sure. I kinda liked his song "Streets of Philadelphia" but I have a pretty good handle on what is cool in music today and Bruce Springsteen is not, nor has he been relevant for several years. I don't understand why the RIAA feels the need to repeatedly nominate people just on their "you are supposed to like them because they are apparently awesome"ness. It's not cool. I can think of at least 20 records from last year that were more deserving of accolades than his.
I think everyone is capable of winning a Grammy and I am already working on my song for next year. When the boring guy (which one?) told me that there were 400 Grammys awarded in 104 categories I knew that I have a good chance. I'm only slightly kidding. I noticed on their ticker that "Hawaiian music album" is a category. That's just weird. Why isn't there a "Most Awesome Minneapolis Band" category. Or a "Best SoCal Punk" category? There is NO Punk category - it's all lumped into "Alternative" which is just far too broad and undefined. There is a metal category and some kick ass bands such as Machine Head and Shadows Fall were nominated. But Slayer won for a song off of "Christ Illusion." I think that's pretty funny. And awesome. I missed some parts of the show and I'm not sure if that was an on camera thing but I would have been really satisfied to see Kerry Fucking King accept an award.
I started to get bored when Tony Bennett started talking. I was looking in the crowd and noticed that Usher was too. I like Tony Bennett to a certain degree. I REALLY like Alec Baldwin as Tony Bennett. But I am not sure he is deserving of all the praise laid upon him. Maybe if you live long enough you become amazingly talented and awesome regardless of your contributions to society. Something to chew on.
My favorite moment of the evening was the brief yet noticeable death stare that Beyonce gave to Rihanna when she and Jay-Z won for "Umbrella." Rihanna kinda grabbed him when they went up to accept their award. It was flirty. I wouldn't fuck with Beyonce. She seems like she could take you out. Easily.
Anyway, that's it. I can't wait until the Oscars - less than two weeks away - to make fun of more people SUPPOSEDLY more talented than the rest of us.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by jennyquarx at 11:58 AM