Three words, babe:
Or maybe this is just me, IDK…
Three words, babe:
Or maybe this is just me, IDK…
Americans will play soccer, particularly when we’re young,* but we don’t want to watch, ’cause we think it’s boring. Sorry, World.
Now the reason we think watching televised soccer is boring is partly due to this game right here, from 1999, a BFD, with President Bill Clinton showing up. But regulation and overtime play was a “tepid affair,” non? It ended in a 0-0 tie. And then the game was won on penalty kicks. Start watching at 9:00.
Boy, that was a nice high-def vid I gave you, huh? Anyway, did you notice this?
This is how the U.S. won the game. If the Chinese shooter chooses to go to the right, as she did, then there was a futbol’s chance in Hell the ball could go into the net.
Oh, so the FIFA refs didn’t call it, so it’s all right? Well, what if the goalie kept on charging and kicked the ball before the shooter had a chance to and the refs didn’t call that either? There comes a point where you simply go too far trying to attain your “goal,” or non-goal in this case.
Anyway, I’m not taking away your victory, USWT99, I’m a just putting a big, fat asterisk in the record book.
Let’s hope USWT15 cheats less today, 16 years later.
*In my part of SF, the Western Addition, you can start you kid on soccer at an RPD park at 18 months old, for like $50 a session.
Of course, you gotta have rules:
Strybing used to be free but now there’s a paywall, except the place still takes up our tax money, which doesn’t really make sense.
The crew that runs this place wants the former Strybing to be a “world-class” facility, whatever that means.
The crew that runs this place likes plants but not people, cause people cause problems.
Which is fine, they want to have a paywall, but why are we still supporting this place, I don’t get it.
IDK. I’d need somebody to spell out all the rules.
Anyway, this skateboarder was prolly a tad too aggressive to be in compliance with Frisco’s rules, whatever they are…
Click to expand
“Please no shopping into your reusable bags?” Oh, I’ve done that. Didn’t know the term for it. I suppose you’re halfway to being a shoplifter once you start doing that, in the opinion of the (quite large) Whole Foods Security Squadron.
What else, oh, follow the rules or you might get banned from the store for five years, or something.
Read the whole list. I’ve never seen a lengthy ToS like this for a store…
What’s this, a way for people to band together against our corrupt SFMTA?
You tell me, Gentle Reader
Hey, what would you do if you knew you were spilling tens of thousands of gallons of petroleum into our San Francisco Bay?
Our SFMTA had a question like this. It failed. Oh well. See below.
Guess what, our SFMTA now wants you to vote yourself a rent increase in order to give it more money. You’ll have your chance to vote on it November 4th, 2014.
SAN FRANCISCO (November 2, 2009) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking action against the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency following federal violations of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
On the page:
The City and County of San Francisco is a municipality organized under the laws of California that operates the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (“SFMTA”) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). The SFMTA operates a diverse fleet of trolley cars, street cars, light rail, alternative fuel vehicles and 495 diesel buses that are serviced and re-fueled at facilities owned and operated by the SFMTA. The SFPUC provides water, wastewater and municipal power services.
Between November and December 2005, approximately 940 barrels (39,488 gallons) of red dye diesel fuel were discharged from one of the Municipality’s underground storage tanks (USTs) at the John M. Woods Motor Coach Facility (Woods Motor Coach Facility). The diesel spread through a piping system into a storm drain, through wastewater collection piping to a pump station, into Islais Creek and eventually San Francisco Bay.
The discharge was caused by a ruptured hose. The leak continued for several days, as sensors, flashers and alarm reports and other leak indicators were ignored. This failure by SFMTA to comply with federal requirements for the management of USTs resulted in the release of diesel fuel and Clean Water Act discharge and pretreatment violations.
After this spill, EPA conducted inspections at several of SFMTA’s facilities and identified violations of EPA’s spill prevention regulations at three of them: Flynn, Kirkland, and Marin.
The five facilities covered by this settlement are in the City and County of San Francisco:
“OR can quite legitimately claim that they need this change to improve the safety of their boat to acceptable levels. ETNZ/LR can quite legitimately claim that the issue is created by design choices.”
When you’re foiling a catamaran, you’re generating lift just like an airplane. The Emirates Team New Zealand yacht generates more lift with the forward element than the rear. The Oracle Racing Larry Ellison yacht does so as well but it gets a bit more lift from the rear compared with ETNZ.
So, ETNZ is more like a regular airplane with a small tail and OR is more like this goofy thing:
Mandating a bigger tail for all comers in the name of safety is a way for the Larry Ellison America’s Cup people to gain an advantage for Larry Ellison and/or Artemis Racing, the team with the other failed design,
“ETNZ have a boat that is almost entirely supported on its single main foil. The rudder provides very little lift, just control forces, which are relatively small. As speed changes, lift changes. The main foil is correspondingly adjusted, as this is allowed, so the lift remains as required. The lift on the rudder changes, but since this force is relatively small, the change in attitude on the boat is not problematic, and the local effects of free surface and small size provide a natural limit to motions. When it goes wrong, the boat will pivot about its main foil, potentially creating a high bow down pitch angle, so they’ve included sufficient buoyancy in the bows to cope.
OR have a boat where the lift is shared between the main foil and the rudder. The amount of lift provided by the rudder is still a small proportion of the total, but the rudder lift force is large compared to the rudder control force. As speed changes, lift changes. The main foil is correspondingly adjusted, but the rudder isn’t. The change in force on the rudder is significant, and affects the attitude of the boat. A small rudder foil that is required to provide a lot of lift can only do so with a large angle of attack, so with a fixed angle, a large change in trim of the boat is required, hence poor control. When it goes wrong, the boat pivots about the rudder foil, and hence a reduced bow down pitch angle, and hence the boat can have lower volume bows to allow recovery.
I’m sure both teams have simulated both approaches. ETNZ decided that they would go for the former, at a price of bigger main foil, lower righting moment, and more aero drag, so they have better control over a wide range of speeds for a given rudder setting. OR decided on the latter as it provides a lower drag solution, but for a smaller range of speeds for a given rudder setting. Boat 1 was an extreme example of this, but boat 2 is less extreme.
However, OR have found that the range of speeds over which they have good control is too small using the maximum size of rudder foil allowed. Hence, when they are running in the narrow speed range, they look good, but as soon as this is not the case, they have large pitch angles. Using a larger rudder foil requires less boat trim to generate the change in force, and hence better control.
The problem OR face is if they were to move the main foils further aft and increase their size, they would then have a boat which, if it goes wrong, will not have enough buoyancy in the bow to recover from the large pitch angle that would occur with the bigger main foil. A potentially dangerous solution, and rebuilding the hulls is probably not feasible, since even if they had the time, the added weight is more than their program has in the bank. They aren’t allowed new hulls. Furthermore, they have made corresponding design choices with their wing that also suggest the expectation of a narrow speed range, and moving to a higher drag foil solution would present them with power issues.
I suspect that OR may have been using a larger rudder foil recently to achieve the improvements we’ve been seeing, and consequently they already know that operating with class legal rudder foils is not a safe option for them, since if they set up the small rudder foils for lighter winds, and the winds increase during a race, they will have an unacceptably high probability of pitchpoling.
As such, the move to increase allowed rudder foil size and control is a real issue for OR, as without it they will have to choose between pulling out of certain races when conditions change, or risking the boat and crew by continuing. ETNZ and LR, on the other hand, don’t have this issue, and in fact increasing the rudder foil size on their boats would not only increase drag, but also create control problems due to the size of the control force generated becoming too large.
Hence the current dichotomy OR can quite legitimately claim that they need this change to improve the safety of their boat to acceptable levels. ETNZ/LR can quite legitimately claim that the issue is created by design choices. Since the AC is not just a design and sailing competition, but a design, sailing, and legal competition, we’ll have to wait and see who has the best overall package.
And then, in response to a question about how the engineer knows all this:
“Because when the OR boat is in the water, its static waterline, combined with its visible hullform when on a crane, shows that the vessel CoG is well aft of the main foil location. On the ETNZ boat, this is not the case. Their main foil is about where the CoG appears to be (actually slightly forward, but not by much).
As such, the resulting moment generated by the offset between main lifting foil vector and sum of sailing force vector on OR requires the rudder foil to provide a significant lifting force, plus also to provide the dynamic positive and negative control force, whilst on ETNZ the rudder foil provide very little lift force, just the control force element.”
Check out Dennis Herrera‘s thoughts on the much-more-expensive-than-promised and shorter-than-promised Central Subway “spur*,” starting at 1:00:
And don’t miss the other part either.
*”Spur?” I love it. Oh yeah, that’s right. It doesn’t go as far north as it should, or as far south neither. And it’s too deep. Maybe it just doesn’t make sense, as things stand now, except as a political payoff.
[More on Smoke Creek Gathering 2011 here.]
Well, this here was the first camper at Burning Man 2011:
Via John Curley – click to expand.
About what you might expect.
And here are the founders all together earlier this year in San Francisco
Again, about what you might expect…
Stay happy, campers!
(Or Burners, whatever.)
Check it man, no rules, man:
“Based on the Trips to the Zone of the San Francisco Cacophony Society, the Smoke Creek gathering has been an underground event occurring for an unknown number of years. Its occurrence on the banks of Squaw Creek Reservoir on the northern edge of the vast Smoke Creek Desert has roughly coincided with Burning Man every year. It began as an informal gathering for “old-school” Burners (as attendees of the Burning Man event are called) who felt restricted by the controls imposed on event participants as the event grew in size. A few veterans who wished to make their own rules left to camp at the free Bureau of Land Management-managed campgrounds at the lakeside of the Squaw Valley Reservoir once Black Rock City, LLC imposed the following restrictions:
At The Smoke Creek Gathering, no such rules are in effect and all attendees are responsible for their own safety.”
Stay happy, Gatherers!