Jan 2008
Wednesday Catch-Up
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Filed in:
Current
Events, General gun
stuff, Shooting
industry, Completely
irrelevant, My Life
Let's see now...this is the
view from my front yard:
Here in Oregon, we're getting historic snowfall amounts - even in our temperate valleys. Record low temps were recorded across the midwest recently, while south of the Mason-Dixon Line Tam has been freezing her tuchus. Personally, I wish someone would explain to me where my share of this "Global Warming" thing is, because I could use it right now...
---
This morning I got an email from AFGWWWTRA, who is en-route to the SHOT show. I'm hoping my secret correspondent will send me back news about neat new revolvers, though I'm not holding my breath. (Note to Taurus: revolvers that shoot shotgun shells are not my idea of "neat.")
---
Note to S&W: the "TR Special Edition" thing is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the guns themselves are getting uglier. If this keeps up, the next one will cost $5k and cause eyes to bleed upon opening the box. Please, no more.
---
Here in Oregon, we're getting historic snowfall amounts - even in our temperate valleys. Record low temps were recorded across the midwest recently, while south of the Mason-Dixon Line Tam has been freezing her tuchus. Personally, I wish someone would explain to me where my share of this "Global Warming" thing is, because I could use it right now...
---
This morning I got an email from AFGWWWTRA, who is en-route to the SHOT show. I'm hoping my secret correspondent will send me back news about neat new revolvers, though I'm not holding my breath. (Note to Taurus: revolvers that shoot shotgun shells are not my idea of "neat.")
---
Note to S&W: the "TR Special Edition" thing is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the guns themselves are getting uglier. If this keeps up, the next one will cost $5k and cause eyes to bleed upon opening the box. Please, no more.
---
|
FRIDAY SURPRISE: It's the little things that make life pleasant
One of the reasons I hate
the very concept of reading books online is because of the
typefaces involved. (In fact, that's one of the saddest parts of
the entire online experience.) There are only a handful that will
reproduce distinctively on a website, and if you're using a Windows
PC (as opposed to a Mac) that number is cut in half (due to the way
Microsoft renders type.) Even such niceties as italics and boldface
are substandard - or non-existent - when getting words through the
'net.
(A typeface, BTW, is a family of type; a "font" is a specific style within that typeface. For instance, Arial is a typeface consisting of the fonts Arial Regular, Arial Bold, Arial Italic, etc.)
Typestyles are tremendously important in their ability to bring emotion to print. One gets a profoundly different feeling reading a paragraph in, say, Caslon versus that same text in Optima. Subtle variances in typefaces can bring huge changes to how the words are perceived by the reader, and the skilled designer recognizes and exploits that.
Look, for instance, at my masthead at the top of the page. The typeface, which is part of the image, reproduces as it should on your machine because it's not webpage text; it was inserted into the image, then output as part of the JPEG of the gun. I did it that way because I wanted the design elements of that particular type, and there was no way to get it as simple text on the page. The masthead would not look the same, nor convey the same feeling, if it were anything else.
Contrast that with the rest of the text on the page, all of which is generated by your computer's HTML rendering engine. It is sterile, and lacks the subtleties of the image at top. (If you're using a PC, the difference is even more profound.) In short, it just doesn't look as nice!
The beauty of one specific typeface is the subject of a neat feature-length independent film called, simply, "Helvetica." Filmmaker Gary Hustwit looks at this ubiquitous type, where it came from and why it's important in the wider world of graphic design. I know, it sounds dry - but I found it to be engaging as it persuaded me to take a closer look at something that is, quite literally, everywhere. If you're a fan of good design, you should check it out.
It's currently available for online viewing at Google video.
-=[ Grant ]=-
(A typeface, BTW, is a family of type; a "font" is a specific style within that typeface. For instance, Arial is a typeface consisting of the fonts Arial Regular, Arial Bold, Arial Italic, etc.)
Typestyles are tremendously important in their ability to bring emotion to print. One gets a profoundly different feeling reading a paragraph in, say, Caslon versus that same text in Optima. Subtle variances in typefaces can bring huge changes to how the words are perceived by the reader, and the skilled designer recognizes and exploits that.
Look, for instance, at my masthead at the top of the page. The typeface, which is part of the image, reproduces as it should on your machine because it's not webpage text; it was inserted into the image, then output as part of the JPEG of the gun. I did it that way because I wanted the design elements of that particular type, and there was no way to get it as simple text on the page. The masthead would not look the same, nor convey the same feeling, if it were anything else.
Contrast that with the rest of the text on the page, all of which is generated by your computer's HTML rendering engine. It is sterile, and lacks the subtleties of the image at top. (If you're using a PC, the difference is even more profound.) In short, it just doesn't look as nice!
The beauty of one specific typeface is the subject of a neat feature-length independent film called, simply, "Helvetica." Filmmaker Gary Hustwit looks at this ubiquitous type, where it came from and why it's important in the wider world of graphic design. I know, it sounds dry - but I found it to be engaging as it persuaded me to take a closer look at something that is, quite literally, everywhere. If you're a fan of good design, you should check it out.
It's currently available for online viewing at Google video.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Well, isn't that special?
Tam is excited that it's John Browning's
birthday.
Personally, I find it difficult to get excited about a guy who never made a revolver....
-=[ Grant ]=-
Personally, I find it difficult to get excited about a guy who never made a revolver....
-=[ Grant ]=-
It's not often someone is willing to admit to doing dumb things
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Filed in:
Personal
opinions, Techniques &
Training
There are times that I feel
I'm harping on the safety issue, but with the number of grievous
injuries and deaths that occur I don't think it is
unwarranted.
The latest, sent to me by an alert reader, is a self-expose (complete with pictures) of a nasty handgun incident. Short version: this fellow, in an attempt to test a recently installed grip safety, pointed his gun at his leg and pulled the trigger. The sequence of events was predictable. (Warning - the pictures may be graphic for some people.)
Once again, I'm going to place the blame squarely on Traditional Rule #1: "All guns are always loaded", or any variant thereof. He felt free to do something blatantly stupid with his gun, because he was sure that he had unloaded it. Since he was sure that he unloaded it, in his mind the other rules obviously didn't apply. If they did, he wouldn't have pointed it at his leg as he intentionally pulled the trigger!
What bothers me most about this fellow's misfortune isn't that he was injured, but that he still doesn't get why it happened in the first place. He is so clueless about this, in fact, that he cites the classic Four Rules of Firearms Safety, starting with the offending Traditional Rule #1 in his article, and explaining to his readers that they should follow them. This is in fact the wrong thing to do, and is what caused his injuries.
It is my opinion that the more people who follow Traditional Rule #1, the more accidents like his will occur. Again, Traditional Rule #1 leads people to do dumb things with guns, because once they're convinced the gun is unloaded they feel at liberty to ignore the other three. In my opinion, we should instead be teaching people to follow the Three Commandments of Gun Safety religiously:
Let's look at his accident: he violated the First Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
He then violated the Second Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
Finally, he proceeded to violate the Third Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
The result? A large emergency room bill. Lots of pain. All because Traditional Rule #1 allowed him to do stupid things with a gun once he was "sure" it was unloaded!
(It is worth noting that the gentleman in question, one Darwin Teague, is on Usenet record as declaring that he would never carry a Glock, as he considers them to be "unsafe." With all due respect, Mr. Teague, if you do stupid things with guns, loaded or not, all the safety features in the world won't stop you from shooting yourself - as you have found out. I wish you luck, as you seem to need it.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The latest, sent to me by an alert reader, is a self-expose (complete with pictures) of a nasty handgun incident. Short version: this fellow, in an attempt to test a recently installed grip safety, pointed his gun at his leg and pulled the trigger. The sequence of events was predictable. (Warning - the pictures may be graphic for some people.)
Once again, I'm going to place the blame squarely on Traditional Rule #1: "All guns are always loaded", or any variant thereof. He felt free to do something blatantly stupid with his gun, because he was sure that he had unloaded it. Since he was sure that he unloaded it, in his mind the other rules obviously didn't apply. If they did, he wouldn't have pointed it at his leg as he intentionally pulled the trigger!
What bothers me most about this fellow's misfortune isn't that he was injured, but that he still doesn't get why it happened in the first place. He is so clueless about this, in fact, that he cites the classic Four Rules of Firearms Safety, starting with the offending Traditional Rule #1 in his article, and explaining to his readers that they should follow them. This is in fact the wrong thing to do, and is what caused his injuries.
It is my opinion that the more people who follow Traditional Rule #1, the more accidents like his will occur. Again, Traditional Rule #1 leads people to do dumb things with guns, because once they're convinced the gun is unloaded they feel at liberty to ignore the other three. In my opinion, we should instead be teaching people to follow the Three Commandments of Gun Safety religiously:
Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and the backstop behind it.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
Let's look at his accident: he violated the First Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
He then violated the Second Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
Finally, he proceeded to violate the Third Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
The result? A large emergency room bill. Lots of pain. All because Traditional Rule #1 allowed him to do stupid things with a gun once he was "sure" it was unloaded!
(It is worth noting that the gentleman in question, one Darwin Teague, is on Usenet record as declaring that he would never carry a Glock, as he considers them to be "unsafe." With all due respect, Mr. Teague, if you do stupid things with guns, loaded or not, all the safety features in the world won't stop you from shooting yourself - as you have found out. I wish you luck, as you seem to need it.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Why revolvers?
I got an email the other
day, asking in effect "why just revolvers?" I dashed off an answer
(with so many emails demanding a response, it's hard to write
essays for each one.) I always feel that I haven't done the subject
justice, so here is yet more about why I choose the round gun over
the flat one.
Why revolvers? Because I like them! I like their lines, their reliability, their accuracy, their power; I like their history, and that they are prototypically "American" firearms. (I like lever action rifles for that same reason.)
I like revolvers because they can be made to fit the hand in a way a slab-sided pistol never can. I like them because of their almost Zen-like operation: the cylinder goes 'round, the gun discharges, and when the operator wishes, the process is repeated. I like them because you can see what's happening; because they are easy to load and unload.
I did not come to these opinions quickly or easily, you understand. When I was a kid, all the other kids wanted a Colt "Peacemaker" and a Winchester '94. Not me - I looked in the Sears catalog (yes, they carried guns when I was a kid) and dreamed of owning a .45 auto and an M1 carbine. I was definitely a contrarian from the start!
It wasn't until my advanced years that the lure of the revolver affected my soul. (Though, as I've related in past posts, it was more of a challenge to my ballistic manhood than an intellectual appreciation. Introspection came later.)
Oh, the best thing about revolvers? They aren't made of plastic!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Why revolvers? Because I like them! I like their lines, their reliability, their accuracy, their power; I like their history, and that they are prototypically "American" firearms. (I like lever action rifles for that same reason.)
I like revolvers because they can be made to fit the hand in a way a slab-sided pistol never can. I like them because of their almost Zen-like operation: the cylinder goes 'round, the gun discharges, and when the operator wishes, the process is repeated. I like them because you can see what's happening; because they are easy to load and unload.
I did not come to these opinions quickly or easily, you understand. When I was a kid, all the other kids wanted a Colt "Peacemaker" and a Winchester '94. Not me - I looked in the Sears catalog (yes, they carried guns when I was a kid) and dreamed of owning a .45 auto and an M1 carbine. I was definitely a contrarian from the start!
It wasn't until my advanced years that the lure of the revolver affected my soul. (Though, as I've related in past posts, it was more of a challenge to my ballistic manhood than an intellectual appreciation. Introspection came later.)
Oh, the best thing about revolvers? They aren't made of plastic!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: How far we've come in just a few short years
For those that actually
remember the dawn of the computer age (my first computer experience
was on a time-shared GE 600-series mainframe), looking over old
computer advertisements brings a flood of reactions: amusement,
embarrassment, and the occasional "I wish I'd bought their stock
when it was first offered." (Of course, there is also the "I'm glad
I didn't buy any of their stock!")
Take a look at these vintage ads. I particularly like the one explaining what email is - not just for the content, but for the company promoting the concept. (Honeywell, once a player in mainframe computers, is perhaps best known these days for making thermostats - which is what they made before they bought their way into the computer business.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Take a look at these vintage ads. I particularly like the one explaining what email is - not just for the content, but for the company promoting the concept. (Honeywell, once a player in mainframe computers, is perhaps best known these days for making thermostats - which is what they made before they bought their way into the computer business.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Those that can....
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Filed in:
Other
resources, Blog stuff
One reader has chastised me
regarding my characterization of the on-air
abilities of Garry James and David Fortier. His taunt to me was "and I
suppose you could do better?"
That, of course, isn't the point. The point is that they're awful on camera, no matter how talented they are as writers. If Outdoor Channel wants their reputations to enhance the show, team them up with someone who does come across in video.
That's the secret to Mythbusters; Jamie would be awful by himself, but teaming him with the uninhibited Adam negates his introversion and makes for good television. (Of course, having Kari on the show doesn't hurt!)
Then again, I'm not a television producer - nor have I ever played one on TV!
-=[ Grant ]=-
That, of course, isn't the point. The point is that they're awful on camera, no matter how talented they are as writers. If Outdoor Channel wants their reputations to enhance the show, team them up with someone who does come across in video.
That's the secret to Mythbusters; Jamie would be awful by himself, but teaming him with the uninhibited Adam negates his introversion and makes for good television. (Of course, having Kari on the show doesn't hurt!)
Then again, I'm not a television producer - nor have I ever played one on TV!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Consolidation in the industry continues
Monday, January 14, 2008 Filed in:
Current
Events, Shooting
industry
By now, you've no doubt
heard that Remington is acquiring Marlin. This announcement was
followed by copious hand-wringing on forums all over the 'net -
along with no end of opinions showing a disturbing lack of
understanding of both basic economics and the global
marketplace.
Against the backdrop of rapidly increasing costs for raw materials, labor, and shipping, it becomes clear that smaller makers like Marlin are facing a tough stretch of road. It may in fact be the case that their survival can only be assured by coming under the umbrella of a larger, more resilient player in the industry. (Look at Smith & Wesson's acquisition of Thompson-Center for a good example.)
Of course I hope that Marlin's quality does not diminish. (Though raised on Winchesters, I prefer Marlin lever actions for their strength and better administrative characteristics.) I don't think that Remington is so stupid as to intentionally damage something they paid a lot of money to own!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Against the backdrop of rapidly increasing costs for raw materials, labor, and shipping, it becomes clear that smaller makers like Marlin are facing a tough stretch of road. It may in fact be the case that their survival can only be assured by coming under the umbrella of a larger, more resilient player in the industry. (Look at Smith & Wesson's acquisition of Thompson-Center for a good example.)
Of course I hope that Marlin's quality does not diminish. (Though raised on Winchesters, I prefer Marlin lever actions for their strength and better administrative characteristics.) I don't think that Remington is so stupid as to intentionally damage something they paid a lot of money to own!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: An important, and serious, topic
Friday, January 11, 2008 Filed in:
Friday
Surprise!, Completely
irrelevant
When I was in college, I had
a keen interest in economics. This is a subject that most approach
with trepidation; it is seen as a "difficult" subject to grasp, let
alone master. Let me assure you: economics, in terms of
understanding the mechanisms involved, is pretty simple. Then
again, so is football. Predicting with any certainty the long range
outcome of economic activity, though, is far from simple. Gee,
again - a lot like football!
From my first freshman level course to my very last, the whole subject fascinated me. I had one prof who was an unrepentant Keynesian, while I - also unrepentantly - was a monetarist from the University of Chicago mold. ("Milton Friedman was right!") We had a mutual respect of each other's opinion, but our class time virtually always devolved to a debate between just the two of us, other students looking on with expressions of incomprehension.
(Most of the students in econ classes, at least at the lower levels, were business school students who were there because an MBA required a certain number of econ credits. I'll spare you the then-common jokes about how MBA students were people who couldn't hack the PhysEd curriculum, but they do tend to explain why B-school folks had no clue what we were talking about.)
For them, as well as a majority of Americans, economics has come to signify some sort of black art that few understand. Fortunately, today we have something other than dry textbooks to show you just how easy and approachable the subject really is.
One first needs a good understanding of what money is and how it is created - and believe me, it isn't done in the way you probably think it is! A few years ago, a Canadian graphic artist by the name of Paul Grignon made an absolutely masterful animated short that deftly explains money, both from a historical and a modern perspective, and will leave any viewer with a solid and comprehensive understanding of just what "money" is.
So important is this film that I recommend everyone see it, share it with friends and family, and talk about it at work. If you do nothing else in terms of economic education, watch this film!
The original is 47 minutes long, but to make it a little less daunting several people have posted it to YouYube in sections.
Money as Debt - Part One
Money as Debt - Part Two
Money as Debt - Part Three
Money as Debt - Part Four
Money as Debt - Part Five
(One caveat: Part Five contains Grignon's prescriptions for a solution to the problems inherent with our current monetary system. Being Canadian, he's obviously cut from a very socialist cloth and his solutions involve ever greater government intervention. I think he's completely mistaken in those conclusions, but they don't detract from what is otherwise a superb explanation of money for the average person.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
From my first freshman level course to my very last, the whole subject fascinated me. I had one prof who was an unrepentant Keynesian, while I - also unrepentantly - was a monetarist from the University of Chicago mold. ("Milton Friedman was right!") We had a mutual respect of each other's opinion, but our class time virtually always devolved to a debate between just the two of us, other students looking on with expressions of incomprehension.
(Most of the students in econ classes, at least at the lower levels, were business school students who were there because an MBA required a certain number of econ credits. I'll spare you the then-common jokes about how MBA students were people who couldn't hack the PhysEd curriculum, but they do tend to explain why B-school folks had no clue what we were talking about.)
For them, as well as a majority of Americans, economics has come to signify some sort of black art that few understand. Fortunately, today we have something other than dry textbooks to show you just how easy and approachable the subject really is.
One first needs a good understanding of what money is and how it is created - and believe me, it isn't done in the way you probably think it is! A few years ago, a Canadian graphic artist by the name of Paul Grignon made an absolutely masterful animated short that deftly explains money, both from a historical and a modern perspective, and will leave any viewer with a solid and comprehensive understanding of just what "money" is.
So important is this film that I recommend everyone see it, share it with friends and family, and talk about it at work. If you do nothing else in terms of economic education, watch this film!
The original is 47 minutes long, but to make it a little less daunting several people have posted it to YouYube in sections.
Money as Debt - Part One
Money as Debt - Part Two
Money as Debt - Part Three
Money as Debt - Part Four
Money as Debt - Part Five
(One caveat: Part Five contains Grignon's prescriptions for a solution to the problems inherent with our current monetary system. Being Canadian, he's obviously cut from a very socialist cloth and his solutions involve ever greater government intervention. I think he's completely mistaken in those conclusions, but they don't detract from what is otherwise a superb explanation of money for the average person.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
A late entry
Yes, I know this post was
supposed to be up this morning. Hey, I'm usually on time, and let's
face it - at the time I'm posting this, it is still Wednesday and
thus I'm technically on time. So there! (Hey - no one gives
Tam a hard time when her posts
are late!)
Anyhow, this has been a busy, busy week. On top of everything else, we had a visit from our friendly local satellite TV installer (Dish, for those terminally curious types out there.) The reason we finally "bit the bullet" was because we wanted to see all the great shooting shows on the Outdoor channel. (Yes, Michael Bane - I wanted to see your show too. Are you happy now?!?)
I used to catch Jim Scoutten's "American Shooter" show on cable, but it bounced from channel to channel and ultimately disappeared. With all of the recreational shooters out there, it would seem a "no-brainer" to have shows that cater to their interests, but it would appear political correctness actually trumps the profit motive. Who knew?
(I've always thought it odd that ESPN considers poker to be a "sport", but not IPSC...or PPC...or CMP...or Sporting Clays...or SASS...you get the idea.)
So this evening my wife and I got to tune into a number of shooting shows for the first time. That Bane character is pretty good, but whose Idea was it to have Garry James and David Fortier host a show? Between the wooden expressions and stilted dialogue it actually made those poker tournaments look attractive!
James and Fortier are both great writers (I enjoy reading their work), but being a good TV host is a different skill set. Someone at the Outdoor channel has yet to figure that out...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Anyhow, this has been a busy, busy week. On top of everything else, we had a visit from our friendly local satellite TV installer (Dish, for those terminally curious types out there.) The reason we finally "bit the bullet" was because we wanted to see all the great shooting shows on the Outdoor channel. (Yes, Michael Bane - I wanted to see your show too. Are you happy now?!?)
I used to catch Jim Scoutten's "American Shooter" show on cable, but it bounced from channel to channel and ultimately disappeared. With all of the recreational shooters out there, it would seem a "no-brainer" to have shows that cater to their interests, but it would appear political correctness actually trumps the profit motive. Who knew?
(I've always thought it odd that ESPN considers poker to be a "sport", but not IPSC...or PPC...or CMP...or Sporting Clays...or SASS...you get the idea.)
So this evening my wife and I got to tune into a number of shooting shows for the first time. That Bane character is pretty good, but whose Idea was it to have Garry James and David Fortier host a show? Between the wooden expressions and stilted dialogue it actually made those poker tournaments look attractive!
James and Fortier are both great writers (I enjoy reading their work), but being a good TV host is a different skill set. Someone at the Outdoor channel has yet to figure that out...
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday catch-up
Monday, January 07, 2008 Filed in:
Blog stuff, Shooting
industry, Political
Action, Techniques &
Training
I usually don't get into
politics in this blog (I don't feel it's appropriate to the subject
matter I cover.) But, since the future occupant of 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue will have a direct impact on 2nd Amendment
issues, I'd like to address the upcoming primaries, both "D" and
"R". I keep hearing that this election is about "change." Call me a
curmudgeon, but I just don't see where shifting from one
overspending, big-government candidate to another overspending,
big-government candidate is "change."
---
Here in the Pacific Northwest, it seems that those who want to "protect and serve" don't handle firearms very well. Just the other day a former Marine and aspiring police officer shot and killed himself at a New Year's Eve party. Though the news accounts played up the "alcohol is involved" angle, in a television interview his girlfriend said that he simply believed that he had unloaded the pistol, and wanted to assuage his guest's fears by putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger.
Sound familiar? Once again, the problem is that people treat guns they believe to be unloaded differently than those they don't.
---
I've been installing Bowen "Rough Country" rear sights on Ruger GP100s for a while, and the clients are very happy with them. The stock Ruger front sight, though, is very indistinct - rounded corners, irregular serrations, and sometimes uneven top surfaces. The Bowen front sight is a great alternative, though pricey - it is an expensive part, and has to be fitted and machined to desired shape. However, if you want the best sight picture possible on a Ruger, it is the way to go.
---
It's a new year, and still no Dan Wesson .357 revolvers from CZ-USA. I'm wondering if they're going to show the shop-worn prototype at the SHOT show next month, and once again claim that they're "coming real soon now!"?
-=[ Grant ]=-
---
Here in the Pacific Northwest, it seems that those who want to "protect and serve" don't handle firearms very well. Just the other day a former Marine and aspiring police officer shot and killed himself at a New Year's Eve party. Though the news accounts played up the "alcohol is involved" angle, in a television interview his girlfriend said that he simply believed that he had unloaded the pistol, and wanted to assuage his guest's fears by putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger.
Sound familiar? Once again, the problem is that people treat guns they believe to be unloaded differently than those they don't.
---
I've been installing Bowen "Rough Country" rear sights on Ruger GP100s for a while, and the clients are very happy with them. The stock Ruger front sight, though, is very indistinct - rounded corners, irregular serrations, and sometimes uneven top surfaces. The Bowen front sight is a great alternative, though pricey - it is an expensive part, and has to be fitted and machined to desired shape. However, if you want the best sight picture possible on a Ruger, it is the way to go.
---
It's a new year, and still no Dan Wesson .357 revolvers from CZ-USA. I'm wondering if they're going to show the shop-worn prototype at the SHOT show next month, and once again claim that they're "coming real soon now!"?
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Many Blasts From The Past
Many people, it seems, do
not know about archive.org. It is an online digital
library of old (public domain) photos, music, movies, books, and
much more. It is an absolute goldmine for anyone who likes to
peruse life from another era.
Let's say, for example, that you want to see Thomas Edison's 1910 film adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein." Not a problem - archive.org has it.
If it's old or obscure, I always look for it first at archive.org; it should come with a disclaimer, though: "Warning! This is a site that can literally eat up hours of otherwise productive time!"
Check it out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Let's say, for example, that you want to see Thomas Edison's 1910 film adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein." Not a problem - archive.org has it.
If it's old or obscure, I always look for it first at archive.org; it should come with a disclaimer, though: "Warning! This is a site that can literally eat up hours of otherwise productive time!"
Check it out.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I'm back - Happy New Year!
Well, I enjoyed my little
vacation. While I was out, the emails and snail mails piled up -
it's going to take the rest of the week to get through
everything!
In my post-vacation hyperactivity, I've decided to rearrange my shop's layout to make it a little more efficient. My parts cabinet, for instance, has always been across the room from my workbench. That's an oversight that has annoyed me for years. It's not a trivial task to fix the problem, as a) the cabinet is quite heavy, and b) lots of other things need to be moved to make the appropriate space. I'm doing it anyway.
In gun news, I found this expose on one of CeaseFire Pennsylvania's board members. I've always marveled at the difference in mental attitudes between pro- and anti-Second Amendment people, wherein the latter tend to focus on hyperbole and emotion, and the former tend to cite facts and scholarship. It comes as no surprise, then, that one of "their own" believes in such non-rational things as crop circles and extra-terrestrials. This is the "mainstream support" they're always bleating about?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go answer the mail. I anticipate some long keyboard sessions!
-=[ Grant ]=-
In my post-vacation hyperactivity, I've decided to rearrange my shop's layout to make it a little more efficient. My parts cabinet, for instance, has always been across the room from my workbench. That's an oversight that has annoyed me for years. It's not a trivial task to fix the problem, as a) the cabinet is quite heavy, and b) lots of other things need to be moved to make the appropriate space. I'm doing it anyway.
In gun news, I found this expose on one of CeaseFire Pennsylvania's board members. I've always marveled at the difference in mental attitudes between pro- and anti-Second Amendment people, wherein the latter tend to focus on hyperbole and emotion, and the former tend to cite facts and scholarship. It comes as no surprise, then, that one of "their own" believes in such non-rational things as crop circles and extra-terrestrials. This is the "mainstream support" they're always bleating about?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go answer the mail. I anticipate some long keyboard sessions!
-=[ Grant ]=-