Ken Storey

Ken Storey is an otherwise unknown professor at the University of Tampa.  He apparently doesn’t like conservatives, or Republicans, or people who are not socialists.  Witnessing the atrocities hurricane Harvey was inflicting on people of all political beliefs and affiliations, he had those reassuring words to offer.

And, not to be outdone, took it up a notch to include people who haven’t suffered yet:

He very quickly took it down AFTER his employer strongly condemned his tweets:

So, who here feels like I do?  I’m sick and tired of people accusing innocents of hate while hating overtly and publicly.  The original post was Ken Storey being honest.  He truly thinks people who voted against his preferred candidate should suffer horribly.  That’s hate people.  Assuming someone else does because you don’t agree with them isn’t.  You just don’t get much more hate filled than what Ken Storey said.  the University of Tampa has a choice to make.  They show people they don’t tolerate hate and do something about it.  Or, they can show people that they do tolerate hate and keep him.  That’s their choice.  Hate can’t be tolerated as long as you agree with it.  If people want it to go away, they have to get rid of their own first.

Next day update: The University of Tampa has fired Ken Storey.

University spokesman Eric Cardenas said in a statement Tuesday that Storey was fired after the school weathered an outpouring of online outrage over the comments.

Good.  This guy doesn’t need to be anywhere near kids.


Turn up the volume, get this video rolling, then read the rest:

I hate social acronyms.  Seriously, hate them.  In the age of silicon, people’s ability to communicate has reverted to a point probably just a little worse than just a little before the Dark Ages.  People speak so cryptically what they are saying could mean almost anything.  Today’s stupid sounding headline:

Aaron Rodgers made sure GOAT isn’t out of reach

Seriously, on the day of probably one of Aaron Rodgers’s favorite wins of his career, they think he’s worried about his goat not being at his side.

What’s that you say?  Even though they emphasize the word goat, they mean something completely different than what they typed?  You mean we are supposed to just assume they mean “greatest of all time” instead of an actual goat?

I can do that, but since Rodgers is nowhere near the discussion of the greatest of all time, there’s no point in assuming something that far-fetched.  It makes more sense to assume he misses his pet goat.  But, since ESPN chose to illustrate how cool they want people to think they are instead of concerning themselves with any possibility of delivering a clear message, I’m not going to read the article at all since it’s probably going to have a bunch more indecipherable slang that attempts to prove the impossible.

People, if something’s so valuable to you, spend the five seconds it takes to clearly state what it is.  BFF is “big friendly furniture”.  BAE is a “bad ass elevator”.  Get the point?  In ten years no one will be referring to GOATS as something good.  These headlines will look as silly as scientists claiming the world was heading for an ice age in the 70’s.  Spell it out.  Leave the trendy acronyms for 11 year old girls.

Got it?


Space Shuttles and foam ( and mega-lightning )

I have been threatening to do a piece on the Space Shuttles. This is sort of going to be it.  Some rudimentary background.  February 1, 2003, Shuttle Columbia breaks up over Texas re-entering the atmosphere.  After an extensive investigation, NASA came to the conclusion that a piece of foam fell off the main tank and hit the shuttle during launch.

“During the test, the 1 1/2-pound piece of foam cracked the reinforced carbon panel and knocked it out of alignment, creating a gap of less than one-tenth of an inch between the panel and an adjoining seal. The crack was at least 3 inches long. “

Now, that sounds convincing enough.  But I have asked the same question for two years, “How can a vehicle designed to withstand speeds of 20,000 mph while being hit by space debris and such be rendered inoperable by foam?”  Although NASA did a good job of explaining how the foam could damage the shuttle, it has never addressed the question that if foam can destroy the shuttle, couldn’t just about anything else?

Well, I’ve sort of found some answersIn 1997, due to environmental concerns and agreements, NASA switched from a freon based foam, to an environmentally friendly foam.  The first launch with the new foam showed that 308 tiles were damaged as opposed to 40 on the average flights before it.  NASA, in their post-Columbia report, felt it was how the foam was applied, not the foam itself.  Since the increase in damaged tiles was observed, NASA has experimented with several ways of applying the foam.  As the launch of Discovery showed, they still don’t have it right.  NASA has an exemption from the EPA to go back to using the original foam, maybe they should ponder it.  But, that still doesn’t answer my question of why the shuttle seems so fragile.

A theory I have had is maybe the shuttle isn’t as fragile as it seems.  If something else went wrong with Columbia, and it wasn’t the loss of a hand full of tiles due to foam, then it’s not quite as fragile as it sounds.  Enter the alternative theory that has been circulating since 2003 but totally discounted by NASA to date:

Research carried out after the discovery of positive lightning in the 1970s showed that positive lightning bolts are typically six to ten times more powerful than negative bolts, last around ten times longer, and can strike several miles distant from the clouds. During a positive lighting strike, huge quantities of ELF and VLF radio waves are generated.

As a result of their power, positive lightning strikes are considerably more dangerous. At the present time aircraft are not designed to withstand such strikes, since their existence was unknown at the time standards were set, and the dangers unappreciated until the destruction of a glider in 1999. It has since been suggested that it may have been positive lightning that caused the crash of Pan Am flight 214 in 1963. Positive lighting is now also thought to be responsible for many forest fires.

Positive lightning has also been shown to trigger the occurrence of upper atmospheric lightning. It tends to occur more frequently in winter storms and at the end of a thunderstorm.

NASA does not know much about what happens in the region Columbia was in when it disintegrated.  Little real research has been done in the region between “sky” and space.  One thing they have observed are the very powerful “blue streaks” in that region of sky.  Which, leads to this:

David Monaghan makes a very compelling argument that it was mega-lightning that took down Columbia.

If this is truly the case, then the shuttle is not quite as fragile as it sounds being downed by foam.  There’s no technology I am aware of that man has developed yet to deal with mega-powerful positive lightning.  If it were a lightning strike, it would mean NASA is dealing with a phenomena it knows little to nothing about, and therefore their answer would have to be something along the lines of “We don’t know how to deal with that”.  And that is not an answer I expect to ever hear from NASA.  But, what it would mean is my faith in shuttle technology would be a lot higher than it is right now.  I mean, come on, foam?  Sure, they can eventually figure out how to keep the foam on the tank, but that still doesn’t make me feel a lot better knowing that with all the space junk and natural space litter floating around up there that’s made of a lot harder stuff than foam that the shuttle is much of a vehicle I would ever want to take a ride in.  Attribute it to lightning.  I know the chances of getting hit by lightning.  At the very least, explore this option a lot more.  If this phenomena is actually prevalent on Earth, it’s going to be something to deal with in space as well.  Maybe not here, but who knows on Mars?