• Track Name

    Episode 102: Problematic Sport-O-Matic

  • Album

    2014

  • Artist

    Kind Of A Talk Show

kindofatalkshow:

Episode 102: Problematic Sport-O-Matic

Thomas, Kieran, Raynell, and Madeeha’s mystery fill-in discuss the utter destruction of Madden, the possibility of Scottish independence (the night before voting!), a racially insensitive team mascot’s transition to…sensitive (?) and much, much more, all before answering YOUR questions!

(You can also listen to the show by left-clicking this link, or right-clicking it and hitting ‘save link as’ to download it or just visit our blog!)

Mystery fill-in! I mean—give these cool folks a listen! They talk about all kinds of cool shite. And ignore the “mystery fill-in“‘s bungled reveal. 

In related Scotland independence news

The spoiled ballots in Inverclyde included 11 that were marked both Yes and No.

Also, if ya’ll haven’t read Breaking Madden, you’re missing out. 

watchingtheinkflow:

2r1t:

maneatingbadger:

micdotcom:

If you don’t have chills after watching the new ‘Mockingjay’ trailer, check your pulse

No. Fucking no. This is quite possibly the most ridiculous scene in the very ridiculous books, and the filmmakers evidently haven’t seen fit to cut it. Pity. 

  1. Bombers flying that low and slow in formation is an airshow pass, not a bomb run. Granted they probably don’t expect much in the way of air defense from the Districts, but it still makes no sense. Why not bomb from altitude at long range? Why come down into the weeds with no time to react to any surprise, accident or arrow-induced? If the Capitol can construct elaborate customizable coliseums, it can build JSOWsThe book also refers to the bombers having a “sight shield,” which I’m guessing is some sort of active camouflage. 
  2. There’s no way Gale and Katniss can shoot far or accurately enough with a bow to hit a target moving that fast, even at low altitude. If you look at the way they’re angling their bows, they’re not even leading the bombers, so their shots would pass harmlessly behind them. 
  3. I don’t care how much Semtex putty you wrap around the arrow, a bow won’t down an airplane. Actually, any more than a few grains of explosive would make the arrow too heavy. Arrow weight is measured in grains, 1 grain = ~64mg or 1/7000 lb. By contrast, the Russian 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO: SA-7 “Grail”) MANPADS has a 1.5-kg warhead, 370 grams of which is high explosive. That’s still light enough that it often damages but doesn’t actually bring down its targets. It also has an infrared seeker, while Katniss’s arrow have to lead her target. Anything other than a direct hit would require some sort of proximity detector or fuse, again increasing the weight of her arrow and thus decreasing the range and speed of her shot. 

I thought Hawkeye was bad enough

My friend, this is why I love you.

except no.

1. “Within seconds, a low-flying V-shaped formation of Capitol hoverplanes appears above us, and the bombs begin to fall.” Also, “They have to drop their sight shields before they release the bombs.” They’re just being true to the fucking book, ok? Also, they are leading. At least they are in the book. “I estimate the lead time on the hoverplanes and let my arrow fly. I catch the inside wing of one, causing it to burst into flames.” 

2. The Hunger Games is not set in modern day America. Do not assume that the weapons of Panem are the same as the weapons we have available today. This fictional universe might not have bombers with enough accuracy to drop from a high altitude. How the fuck should we know? It’s written from the pov of someone with basically zero military knowledge in the first place.

3. Katniss’s arrows and bow and specially designed by Beetee. “I can shoot with accuracy over one hundred yards.” If it says her explosive arrows can blow a hole in a plane then they can fucking blow holes in planes.

4. IT. IS. A. GODDAMN. FICTIONAL. UNIVERSE.

1. I read the books. Changes are inevitable in adaptations (“just being true to the fucking book,” my ass) and I’d applaud them making one here. 

2. Panem is set in an “unknown time period in a post-apocalyptic world,” but it’s my understanding this is a dystopian future, one with maglevs, genetic engineering, and large vertical-lift hovercraft, to boot. If they can make a 3D hologram control a massive outdoor arena, they can build a cluster bomb and guide it with a laser pointer. 

And Katniss may have “zero military knowledge,” but Suzanne Collins’s father was a USAF Vietnam veteran and West Point history lecturer whose PTSD left a tremendous impression on her. I’m all for suspension of disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but realism could only have furthered her pretty diluted message that “war is hell.” 

3. I don’t care if Legolas himself handed her an Elvish bow, any plausible attack aircraft would be flying too quickly even at low level to be hit by an arrow. 300 feet, big whoop. Bombers aren’t deer, you wouldn’t expect a big-game bow hunter to hit an A-10 at Nellis. I don’t care if she leads her targets in the books, no arrow is going to hold enough explosive and fly high enough. Unless I missed the part where Collins suspended the laws of physics? (Which she might’ve with the hovercraft, we still can’t really beat the thrust-weight paradox that’s proven so problematic with the Harrier, V-22, and F-35.) Ultimately, there is a bullshit threshold, and Jennifer Lawrence shooting bombers with arrows is definitely beyond it. 

4. Y’know what they don’t have in Panem? Magic. 

micdotcom:

If you don’t have chills after watching the new ‘Mockingjay’ trailer, check your pulse

No. Fucking no. This is quite possibly the most ridiculous scene in the very ridiculous books, and the filmmakers evidently haven’t seen fit to cut it. Pity. 

  1. Bombers flying that low and slow in formation is an airshow pass, not a bomb run. Granted they probably don’t expect much in the way of air defense from the Districts, but it still makes no sense. Why not bomb from altitude at long range? Why come down into the weeds with no time to react to any surprise, accident or arrow-induced? If the Capitol can construct elaborate customizable coliseums, it can build JSOWsThe book also refers to the bombers having a “sight shield,” which I’m guessing is some sort of active camouflage. 
  2. There’s no way Gale and Katniss can shoot far or accurately enough with a bow to hit a target moving that fast, even at low altitude. If you look at the way they’re angling their bows, they’re not even leading the bombers, so their shots would pass harmlessly behind them. 
  3. I don’t care how much Semtex putty you wrap around the arrow, a bow won’t down an airplane. Actually, any more than a few grains of explosive would make the arrow too heavy. Arrow weight is measured in grains, 1 grain = ~64mg or 1/7000 lb. By contrast, the Russian 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO: SA-7 “Grail”) MANPADS has a 1.5-kg warhead, 370 grams of which is high explosive. That’s still light enough that it often damages but doesn’t actually bring down its targets. It also has an infrared seeker, while Katniss’s arrow have to lead her target. Anything other than a direct hit would require some sort of proximity detector or fuse, again increasing the weight of her arrow and thus decreasing the range and speed of her shot. 

I thought Hawkeye was bad enough

observableparallax:

people always throw around the “atheists are more hated than Muslims in America” statistic as if it’s surprising, but to me it makes perfect sense. The conservative Americans who disdain both so much are not Christians morally or ontologically; they’re ‘cultural’ Christians. They don’t question their faith because that would mean questioning their culture. So while they’re racist and bigoted and homicidal towards Islam, in the abstract, denying the existence of God is a deeper affront to their culture than simply belonging to a different one. In the abstract, Atheism is a more dangerous idea than Islam, even though in the real world Muslims suffer far more. War against people of other faiths is a ritual act, denying faith is novel. So I shed no tears for atheists who feel prejudiced against because it doesn’t mean anything for their daily lives.

Yet that very “cultural” Christianity means atheists are less electable than gays, blacks, and Muslims, trusted about as much as rapists, and discriminated against in both the courts and the military. The Suffer Scale is meant to lend perspective, not categorically dismiss very real prejudice just because Richard Dawkins is a jerk. “Doesn’t mean anything in their daily lives,” my ass. 

worldiary:

Post 5 random things about yourself then pass it along to ten of your followers

1. I do not know how to budget.

2. Or invest.

3. I love to travel.

4. I love long conversations with people about randomly deep intellectual stuff.

5. I recently finished Shot-gun Snow White and I want someone to talk about the end with because it was a fascinating piece of literature but I am SO CONFUSED.

maneatingbadger, saifg235, draconicrose

  1. I don’t have a favorite color. 
  2. I like pickles but not cucumbers. 
  3. My early musical tastes spawned directly from the soundtracks of airplane and video game videos on YouTube
  4. My left earlobe has a freckle that makes it look pierced. I hate it because I have a pathological fear of jewelry. 
  5. My guilty pleasures are military sci-fi weapons-porn space operas and Gilmore Girls

Follower selections delayed pending discovery of a random follower name generator. 

Even the more challenging case of ISIS indicates the lack of a national security justification for a general-purpose or expanded counterterrorism authorization. As of this writing, President Obama has authorized limited use of force against ISIS in Iraq to protect American personnel and execute humanitarian operations. But two things are notable. First, the administration appears to have cited Article II authority for the strikes rather than request authorization from Congress because of the limited nature and intensity of the operation. Second, even if sustained armed conflict against ISIS (or any other group) becomes necessary – which would trigger the need for Congressional authorization – then the administration would be free to request a separate, specific authorization for that purpose. At present, the need for such an authorization for ISIS is not clear. While the Department of Defense is concerned about the threat ISIS poses to U.S. interests in the region as well as their anti-American rhetoric, they “don’t assess right now that they [ISIS] are doing distinct homeland plotting.”

Moreover, any general-purpose authorization would likely fail to make important distinctions about threats. Lumping organizations as disparate as AQIM – an al-Qaeda affiliate – and ISIS – a competitor to al-Qaeda – under the same general-purpose authorization makes generalizations about threats rather than recognizing the important distinctions between terrorist organizations, what they mean for American interests, and what the war aims should be in any hostilities against them.

Ending the Endless War: An Incremental Approach to Repealing the 2001 AUMF by Bill French with John Bradshaw, National Security Network
Of the 35 instances that Congress has authorized the use of military force, 60 percent contained geographic limitations, 43 percent named the enemy, 37 percent limited the kinds of military operations or forces authorized to be employed, and 23 percent contained an expiration date. While 51 percent of such authorizations included just one of the previous four types of limitations, the 2001 AUMF is the sole case in American history that includes none.
Ending the Endless War: An Incremental Approach to Repealing the 2001 AUMF by Bill French with John Bradshaw, National Security Network

Ending the Endless War: An Incremental Approach to Repealing the 2001 AUMF by Bill French with John Bradshaw

For those who are interested, this is a paper put out this August by the National Security Network on rolling back and repealing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as covered by Defense News, Lawfare Blog and Politico Pro. I had a small hand in proofreading it while interning there this summer. 

This paper assesses the national security risks of perpetual warfare entailed by the 2001 law and recommends a way forward to realize President Obama’s commitment to “refine, and ultimately repeal” the AUMF. A realistic window of opportunity is emerging to refine the law by bringing it in line with historical practice and putting it on the course toward repeal. The war in Afghanistan is coming to a close. The campaign to degrade and destroy core al-Qaeda has largely succeeded, rendering the organization “probably unable to carry out complex, large-scale attacks in the West.” Moreover, the expansion of operations under the AUMF has already stressed its authority to the limits and leaves open the possibility of expansive interpretations of the law by future administrations, further calling for refinement. 

Read the full paper here

evanfleischer:

Life would be much, much easier if I came with my own copy editor, wouldn’t it?

My services are available for not unreasonable (and even edible) rates. 

mashable:

What’s better than John Oliver, Sesame Street and Al Roker covering the news? John Oliver, Sesame Street and Al Roker covering the news with bad puns.

[via]

This was brilliant, be sure to watch the outtakes. For the record, Cookie Monster is wrong, Al Roker is right, and Tumblr is far more entertaining than my course readings on nationalism.

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union