Click to expand
Hey look, it’s GoldieBloxeses’ “our letter to the Beastie Boys.”
Dear Adam and Mike,
We don’t want to fight with you. We love you and we are actually huge fans.
UH, LET ME CALL BULLSHIT ON THIS RIGHT NOW. YES YOU DID WANT TO FIGHT THEM. REMEMBER?
When we made our parody version of your song, ‘Girls’, we did it with the best of intentions.
WHO WROTE THIS, A LAWYER? THAT’S YOUR CONCLUSION, ABOUT THE PARODY, RIGHT? THIS IS AWFULLY “ON MESSAGE” FOR AN APOLOGY LETTER. AND YOU DID IT WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? I THINK YOU DID IT WITH THE PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY. IS THAT A GOOD INTENTION?
We wanted to take a song we weren’t too proud of, and transform it into a powerful anthem for girls.
WHY WERE YOU NOT TOO PROUD OF IT? DID YOU WRITE IT, DO YOU OWN IT? I THINK IT’S THE BEASTIE BOYS THEMSELVES WHO HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY WEREN’T PROUD OF IT AND THAT WAS TWO DECADES AGO.
Over the past week, parents have sent us pictures and videos of their kids singing the new lyrics with pride, building their own Rube Goldberg machines in their living rooms and declaring an interest in engineering. It’s been incredible to watch.
IS THIS AN AD FOR YOUR COMPANY?
Our hearts sank last week when your lawyers called us with threats that we took very seriously.
YOUR HEARTS SANK? WHOSE? YOUR VC BACKERS’ AND YOURS?
As a small company, we had no choice but to stand up for ourselves.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHY DIDN’T YOU GET PERMISSION FIRST OR CHOOSE A DIFFERENT SONG OR MARKET YOURSELVES DIFFERENTLY? WHY NOT JUST STOP USING THE SONG? DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT? HERE’S WHAT THE BOYS SAID: “When we tried to simply ask how and why our song “Girls” had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.” THAT WAS THE “THREAT.”
We did so sincerely hoping we could come to a peaceful settlement with you.
We want you to know that when we posted the video, we were completely unaware that the late, great Adam Yauch had requested in his will that the Beastie Boys songs never be used in advertising.
WELL GEE, IF YOU HAD ASKED, YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT, POSSIBLY, RIGHT? YOU DON’T REALLY NEED TO KNOW ALL THIS INFORMATION ANYWAY, RIGHT? YOU JUST NEED TO NOT INFRINGE, RIGHT? DON’T YOU KNOW THAT?
Although we believe our parody video falls under fair use, we would like to respect his wishes and yours.
SO, YOU’VE GOTTEN TONS OF FREE PUBLICITY FOR YOUR TOY COMPANY AND NOW YOU WANT TO RESPECT WISHES. OK FINE.
Since actions speak louder than words, we have already removed the song from our video.
NOT ON VIMEO, NOT YET, BUT PROLLY BY TOMORROW, SURE.
In addition, we are ready to stop the lawsuit as long as this means we will no longer be under threat from your legal team.
IS THIS FROM YOUR LAWYERS AGAIN? IS THIS THEIR SETTLEMENT OFFER? THE ONLY REASON YOU’RE UNDER “THREAT” IS BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS, RIGHT?
We don’t want to spend our time fighting legal battles.
EVEN IF IT WILL GET YOU ATTENTION? I DON’T BELIEVE IT.
We want to inspire the next generation. We want to be good role models. And we want to be your friends.
Debbie + Team GoldieBlox
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT. ALL RIGHT, WELL, HAPPY HOLIDAYS. OH WAIT, THE CHRISTMAS GIFT SEASON IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER. WHAT A CONVENIENT TIME TO BECOME “FRIENDS,” WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
So, unlike the disastrous America’s Cup and 8 Washington campaigns, the Golden State Warriors project is based around stuff that San Franciscans can actually benefit from.
So that’s a good sign.
Remember, the more you complain now, the better this deal gets for San Francisco. You the public are the bad cop and genial SFGov figurehead Ed Lee is the good cop. And of course the good cop won’t be able to get the best deal possible for San Francisco without the bad cop.
If Ed Lee doesn’t like this game, then he can just retire, right? Or go back to his old job the way he promised to in the first place, right?
It’s too bad that Oakland will lose its team.
This bit here has elements that are somewhat old and hackneyed, and yet it’s also brand new and it’s also informative:
[UPDATE: Joe Eskenazi of SF Weekly has the story. Mitchell being on the boat when it's not "competing" in a race is kosher, per Russell Coutts and International Jury member Bryan Willis. A mystery solved.]
Boy, we’re deep into Bill Clinton-land, it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-”is”- is-ville now.
Is this Matthew Mitchell, who was officially “excluded from sailing on a Yacht competing in the Match for the 34th Americas Cup until 4 races have been completed,” sailing on a Yacht competing in the Match for the 34th Americas Cup before 4 races have been completed?
Click to expand
Giant signs don’t lie:
Click to expand
It’ll be a huge cattle call the way they had for Our First City Target in SoMA on Mission last year.
But you should apply here before you show up, I s’pose.
All the deets of the job titles/positions you can apply for, after the jump.
“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.”
Well the announcement is officially coming this AM, but Messrs. Matier und Ross already have the skivvy on the brand-new, slightly-more-NIMBY-friendly proposal.
And, here, check the latest illustrations.
From the former proposal, a silvery looming UFO with kayak access…
…to the new proposal, a slightly lower silvery looming UFO without kayak access:
So Warriors, take that 13% rate down to 3% and then you might have something, you might have a privately-financed stadium deal.
Now let’s review our waterfront proposals.
The America’s Cup deal was poorly-negotiated on purpose so we could pay for Larry Ellison’s ego trip. It’s an ongoing travesty.
And 8 Washington is corruption.
But this here arena proposal seems OK fine to me, more or less.
I’ll now invite the rich, property-owning NIMBYs of SoMA to move to Fairfield, where 15% of the houses are in foreclosure.
Click to expand
At first I was thinking…Easter?
And then I thought Boston Marathon.
And then I realized it was for the GSW.
Is it a little cheesy to do this so far ahead of time?
Oakland doesn’t have much, you know.
They were going to get a pair of pandas from China, but that didn’t work out.
That’s Venus, the Evening Star, to the right of the dome, BTW.
And that’s a #5 Fulton hover bus heading inbound on McAllister…