Darth Fluffy

I am curious what function remaining calm in that situation serves. Seems like a perfectly good time to panic.

The very last Batman movie I saw, The Dark Knight Rises, was good. It had a lot of background story, and the scope of things made sense, like why he has access to advanced technology. I believe a lot of the backstory portrayed is newish, and might not match golden era Batman. Anne Hathaway plays a good, but different Catwoman, not grossly different, but more positive and less criminal. Michael Caine plays Alfred, who was supposed to have actually been a batman in this version. When I looked it up, I was surprised how long ago this came out. There is a new one that came out this year. I have not seen a movie in forever, no idea if it is good.

Just came from downtown Raleigh, fireworks nearby, dog and cat at the house I was at were scared.

I agree with the intent of this quote, but not the detail. It seems from events around me during my lifetime men decide to fight what they perceive to be evil, but would admit it is of limited scope (oh, but of burning significance!), then their alleged 'good' becomes a much greater, wider scope, oppressive evil. Look no further that 'pro-life' activists who murder abortionists. I'm sure that in some twisted way, it makes sense to them. I think that is more spot on. That seems to actually speak to a level of enlightenment, awareness that you are becoming a like monster. I doubt if many achieve that, evidence seems to say, 'No'. To speak further on people embracing their abyss, we'd best move to the political thread.

It does slow you down, that's why I'm working on mine. I think the trash pandas are working on thumb technology as well.

Speaking of 'not funny any more', we've had several shootings since yours, but yours is more newsworthy, because here it is not nearly as unusual. There is a saying in Proverbs "As dead flies make the perfumer's ointment give off an evil odor, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor". Whatever else you think about the Bible, I'm pretty sure that will ring true. I find it illuminating how often religious extremism and/or bigoted PoV supported by religious beliefs are at the center of violence, even though the majority of folks deplore the violence. We live in strange, sad times.

Got ya. The twisted PoV was that she was posting her own pictures.

"Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?"

We've been hitting 90s (F) for days. Admittedly, 90s (C) or 90s(K) would be much worse.

Ahm takin a trip, bee bak sune.

Poor kitty is hot. Sticking out tongue to sweat.

No wonder you post so much about your cat.

The size could be Fox, and Fox is very much like a twin of Nanase, but that doesn't account for the other anomalies, especially the strap on wings. So, rereading the commentary, the commentary spells it out. It is so unexpected, that the commentary made no sense until an Nth reread. That is Nanase. She cast her fairy doll spell and instead of producing a fairy doll, got the pictured cosmetic change. It mentions Nanase feeling the high heels appear, and it mentions the sparkles as 'modesty sparkles', but does not otherwise spell out the cosmetic details; so those are not specific choices Nanase made. It does explain why she looks startled. Also not explained is why the apparently strap on wings aren't real wings. It seems to not be a variant of the fairy doll spell so much as an entirely different spell. It also does not jump out as fitting a 'Why would she get this spell?' rationale. And, what happened to her fairy doll spell? We've seen her use it since the 'not change'. It seems this comic is not canon, which is par for Sketchbook comics.

Giving it another look, it appears to be Nanase, not a doll. If you'll notice, there are straps by her shoulders, they appear to be holding on the (costume) wings. That leads to the speculation that this is entirely Nanase dressing up, likely for a costume event, further evidenced by the matching green lipstick. And the outfit has a Tinker Bell look. The hose looks good, but if it is Halloween, it may also be for warmth. The high heels appear to be doing what they are designed to do, making her stand awkwardly so that her posture is more provocative. (I'm also not a fan, I think they lead to problems with long term use.) I would assume that the wings are non-functional, except she can float anyway. We have seen magical creatures in EGS flying with insufficient wings; these seem even more egregious. Insect wings are thin and have little stiffness. It works when the flying object weighs grams. Three things I don't get, the cosmetic stars on her cheeks seem odd; they don't enhance the look, they are not on Tinker Bell nor on Nanase's fairy dolls, and a single one on one cheek seems more traditional as a cosmetic mark. The halo of stars around her looks like it would enhance her costume, but it is also highlighting her as a magic user. Unless the party is with the usual gang (which seems likely), that is something she wouldn't want to do. She looks startled, but the setting suggests familiar surroundings. There is no hint what she might be startled at. Her little sister walked in and saw the sparkles?

Burt Ward, who played Robin, was a martial artist with no previous acting credits. The villains were played by well known actors. I liked Julie Newmar as Catwoman in her literal cat suit. She was played as a shallow villain, with no hint of the romance between Dick Grayson and Selina Kyle. I believe it had not yet been introduced in the comics. In fact, for the most part, the characters were shallow with no exploration of their backgrounds. The cartoon graphics sound effects were a hoot, and Robin's ubiquitous "Holy <something related to whatever the topic was>, Batman" as well. A thing to watch for is guest appearances from random 60s shows hanging out of windows as they are climbing the building walls, there's always a brief interaction.

Happy 4th, stay safe, lunacy abounds. Yep, good call. So, he must be local, and might return later.

"It's an almost 50 year old design". - not as much of an issue as it might seem. Where have the advances been since it was fielded? Stealth - yes, it is hardly stealthy, some air frame characteristics like vectored thrust - it is slow and nor a fighter jet, materials - the materials in the A-10 are still pretty much the state of the art. I'm not a fan of aluminum, but it is difficult to justify the cost of titanium everywhere. (Aluminum begins failing from the moment it is used. This is why aluminum wings have a stated design lifetime. Titanium, like iron and steel, is resilient.) Electronics cover more functions than they did fifty years ago, but in many instances are the easiest part of an upgrade. The B-52 is a good example of 'It's adequate, and we'll keep using it.' So is the A-10 good in it's role or at least adequate? "Avenger isn't really all that great against modern armor and that's what people mainly think about when they talk about A10s." - I'm not agreeing with this so much. Very modern designs address the weaknesses that the A-10 exploits. But what is actually in the filed is much older; case in point, what the Russians are field in the Ukraine. (They may be holding back newer designs to counter the possibility of facing the A-10.) "Almost anything, including heavy bombers can drop precision guided munitions now, so needing a dedicated CAS design isn't really all that important." - Amazing. That is the USAF argument for phasing it out. I beg to differ; an attack AC can drop a handful of precision guided munitions, and take out as many vehicles. A heavy bomber could drop a shitload, but who is going to designate the targets? And A-10, a single A-10, can tear up a column. And even if the tanks can more or less survive, the bulk of the support vehicles and launchers will not, they are not as hardened. The cannon spits out rounds at an unreasonably fast rate, and they will pierce engine blocks, equipment, carried missiles, and pretty much anything else. "What it can do, that no other current aircraft can do is stand up to anti-aircraft artillery. Not so much against SAM however." - it has a decent chance of returning home and keeping the pilot alive if shot up, but the airplane is at best out of commission until repaired. Against a SAM site, it has a decent chance of taking it out, but yeah, if the SAM site gets a lock and gets one off, the A-10 is not going to stand up to that. OTOH, it can approach fairly low. A lot of SAM focus is on high speed, high altitude jets, not optimized for an A-10 flight profile. I would speculate that the weak point is hand held Stinger type devices, which can reach it quickly and whose launch point is far less highlighted. Re: old hardware, the Browning 50 cal is about 100 years old. Some updates over the years, the bulk of them during WW II.

I suppose that is appropriate, since I am elderly. I looked up the C model upgrades, and I am impressed, although as y'all say, the USAF is jonesing to dump the Warthog. (In favor of the F-35; that I really don't get, see previous). Super Warthog information seems to be sparse, supporting your planning stage claim. Oh, bother.

Have you tried any of the RPG game remote frameworks? I am looking at them on Steam (some on sale this week) and wondering if they are a good idea. The Fantasy Grounds one looks good, but appears to charge a lot for every rule tweak DLC.

Glad you're safe. Not much news available. I asked a German friend today if he was in the US for the comedy relief. He said, "It's not funny any more", which we had to agree with.

Oh? That's kind of sad. I saw an article an thought it was further along, probably conflated it with something about the 'C'. I have a question, though. Would consideration of which aircraft work well with carriers be considered 'Contemplating your naval'?

That is a fair point, you are not wrong. They are embarrassed by it's success into keeping it. Sad, because they have good infrastructure for the plane and the gun. If they don't get their shit together, it could happen. How fortuitous then that to follow-on is rolling out. It may be old, but it is still top notch successful. And as you point out, there was a reasonable work around for the specific deficiency. During Desert Storm, it tore up the opposition. What is amazing is that no one has bothered to copy it.

The Air Force is the right ones to operate the A-10, but they need to embrace it. It is far more effective at ground attack than anything with a handful of anti-tank missiles. The Air Force knows how to back up it's air assets and protect them, the ground forces treat them as attrition pieces. The A-10 is too valuable for that. That really isn't surprising. The Air Force has long runways because the Air Force needs long runways. Most Air Force assets are optimized for some aspect of flight regime, not for how they start and stop. They don't (mostly can't) land on a ship. Air Force and Navy pilots take off and land differently. VTOL would be way down the list of Air Force priorities. The Marines are constrained by their traditional historic role of seaborne assault and their modern role of first wave shock assault troops. The aircraft like the Harrier and F-35 fit the seaborne role, but with so much excess hardware do not fit the Air Cap role hardly at all. (The Navy planes do that well for them, so not a great concern) They do interdiction, and can get on station faster than a helo, but I'd say don't perform any better. If the A-10 is an option, I'd rather have that soften up the target area, then follow up with assault helos as the battle develops. Not sure what more a jet that can hover brings to the table. The Osprey in particular, I'm surprised the Air Force has any. Reading the Wiki article, it does not look like they were happy with the few they had.

Ouch, you make it sound even lamer than it already seemed. Just my opinion, but that aircraft is going to be retired before it sees any real use. Maybe there's a role that justified sticking a ducted fan in the middle of your aircraft, but I'm not seeing it.