Hiya, Fritzie! I couldn’t sleep last night either, we almost crossed paths in the night. So which is worse, not being able to go to sleep or waking up too early?
The thing I don’t like about Romney/Gingrich is their inconsistency. I don’t know when they’re going to take off to the left, in search of “compromise.” Normally, I’d prefer the Executive to be of one party, and the Legislature to be of the opposing party. (It helps to reduce the number of new laws, I think.) I have zero faith that, once in office, these guys will be/stay true to conservative principles.
Mitt Romney the man who should be primarying Obama for the democrat nomination. Newter Gingrich the candidate Obama derangement syndrome hath rot. No good can come of it but as a newly minted non party affiliated voter I can say I told you so.
Ed. combined the statement with this link and deleted the comment with the broken link. Use your reply button… being stubborn is not endearing. Anyone smart enough to link to a YouTube video is smart enough to use the frakking Reply button.
Oh, Scott M, must you continually walk the line, going so far this time as to call an admin a disparaging name? I wasn’t the “Ed” comment above, by the way.
Interesting but I wouldn’t call it hypocritical. Our electorate, the US electorate, is notoriously finicky; hence the discussions for/against pure democracy/Electoral College. I bet half of them don’t even remember or even know the scandals of Rick Scott.
Anyone want to venture over to a certain Hollywood thread and watch my rating sink like a Sherman tank was tied to it? I just wrote that Shakespeare in Love deserved the Oscar over Saving Private Ryan.
You ever see that part in Frankenstein with the villagers, torches, and pitchforks?
Oh, well. As that MFer’s got me completely blackballed there, even after one of his editors petitioned him to get me reinstated, sadly couldn’t help anyway. Need to get me one of those temp IP addresses.
If you haven’t already stated, please add from me: “A brilliant opening sequence does not a whole movie make, especially when Spielberg regurgitated so much from his Empire of the Sun in the subsequent scenes. Tom Stoppard = genius and his words flowed brilliantly through many great performances and scenes in Shakespeare in Love.”
Ugh. SiL was tedious at best…Cod-Shakespeare for the ‘hipsters’ who wouldn’t know real literature (or acting, for that matter) if a library fell on them. KatherineL had it right above — a one note rom-com anachronism.
SPR had some of the best 20 minutes of celluloid action ever…but it, too, has a last act that fails the narrative. “Earn this?” Really? feh.
I think I’ve said this before but when I first saw SPR, I thought it was great but as time went by I began to like it less and less. Bad tactics, stupid plot…out of all the D Day stories that were real, you couldn’t find one worth filming, Spielberg? “Betty Grabel, what a dish”, kiss my ass.
Eric is correct and I agree with you Wank. Although I loved Saving Private Ryan and it will be in my Bluray collection while Spakespeare will not, it is a superior quality film. That said, the Oscars should put weight onto the entertainment value as well, but I’m a guy so I’m biased against chick flicks
Anyone here seeing the movie Courageous? I hear great things but would like other opinions…it doesn’t recite a bunch of Biblical verses does it? I am married to a Budhist and if things get preachy I spend entirely too much time explaining what it all means and end up missing half the movie.
Saw it, no more Bible than its worthy predecessor Fireproof. Very much on that same line of thought. Fireproof = better marriage. Courageous = better fatherhood. Not as preachy as Facing the Giants or Flywheel. Christian movie making is getting better, but there remains some hokeyness that is hard to dismiss.
I would imagine it’s not very cost effective so you’ll not see these in your local 30-06 any time soon. But, for specialized sniper work, this is very cool indeed.
He won among staunch conservatives . . . and that’s it.
He could not move out from that group.
Mitt, however, could not pierce that group much. Brit Hume is right, if he wants to grab that group he needs to present a solid case FOR Mitt, other than electability.
So as good as it was for Mitt, he needs to remember he won this by a shock and awe negative campaign.
He needs to learn from this primary election.
Also, Ann Romney gave a rather simple speech thanking their various supporters and was more energetic than Mitt -but that ain’t exactly a Herculean task.
Jim Geraghty might be right, we’re could be running the wrong spouse.
Being from a state that doesn’t really matter one way or the other when it comes to the primaries, I just decided last election that I was simply going to vote for the name that wasn’t spelled “OBAMA” in the next election. Even if the name is Juicy Turd.
Notes on Newt’s speech:
-Newt brings up history as much as Mitt impersonates the android Data.
-Newt compared a “money campaign” to a “people’s campaign”.
-Newt appears to be getting back on message.
-Nice teleprompter jab.
-His daughter is getting on my nerves, for some reason.
-That Dec. of Ind. at the end of the speech felt kinda forced, but that’s just me.
I think it’s hilarious that you never see Callista more than 5 feet from Newt. It seems like she doesn’t trust him out of her sight at all (and who knows better than her what he’s capable of when out of sight of his wife)!
Two of my favorite topics tonight; Economics and Physics. All I need is for someone to ask a question about Willie Dixon and this’ll be the best day ever!
No, actually it’s great fun! This is how Galileo, Newton and Einstein worked this stuff out, with thought experiments.
So, think about it, Dr. Does the rocket “know” how powerful the jet engines are? Would a rocket fired from the ground, in a Ford Pinto traveling 25 mph, accelerate any differently? Have less force? A jet flying level at 1,200mph is the same as a jet, parked on the tarmac with its engines off as far as the rocket knows.
F = MA. The rocket has an F, its Mass times its Acceleration, and the aircraft has an F, its Mass times its Acceleration. If the aircraft is flying at a constant rate of speed and a constant altitude its acceleration is 0mph. Think of Outlaw, hovering in his helicopter. To a rocket it’s the same as an F-15 flying level at Mach 3.
Right but is the force of the weapon firing going to be enough to cause any noticeable change in the operation of the aircraft? I didn’t think we were discussing if there would be force imparted against the aircraft, I thought we were discussing how a pilot adjusts for it. I just don’t see how there would be a large enough change in the path of the aircraft to cause any notice.
As to helicopters, I’m totally with you on that part and that’s why I was asking Outlaw about how the pods operate. He cleared that up by explaining how the systems are designed to minimize friction at the time of launch as so most of the force is not being transferred to the aircraft itself. I would assume if I bolted a hellfire missile to the side of Outlaw’s helicopter and fired the thing, it would spit it around, cause it to crash, or do something like that assuming it wasn’t armed to explode and impart a whole new range of forces.
In a successful launch, any force that is applied to the aircraft from the weapon would be for such a short amount of time, that in the case of a jet, the thrust of the engines would cause the aircraft to recover any lost velocity so quickly you wouldn’t even notice the thing fired. A stationary helicopter doesn’t have the thrust of engines pushing the aircraft constantly in one direction like that, so there would need to be some actual adjustment made on the part of the navigator (human or automatic) to counter a firing weapon if for some reason the firing was powerful enough to move the helicopter.
Dr. Schplatt. I know you don’t believe me, but, for the purposes of this question, there is no difference between a hovering helicopter and an F-15 flying level at a constant rate of speed. None.
Think about the planet you are on. It is literally spinning at 1,000mph. That is an incredible mass spinning very quickly. If rocket engine “power” mitigates force by its mere presence, a force like the mass of a planet traveling at 1,000mph ought to eliminate everything. Yet, when you fire a gun you feel the opposite reaction.
In relation to exact time the force is applied to the aircraft and the physics at that exact moment, sure.
But an F-15 flying at 1,000 mph and hits a gust of headwind that causes the aircraft to slow to 975mph for 1 second. Almost immediately as soon as that gust of headwind is past, the aircraft is right back to 1,000 mph due to the force of the engines. A basically unnoticeable change to the path of the aircraft that required basically no adjustment from the pilot to return to the previous state.
A hovering helicopter hit by a gust of wind is moved back 10 feet. If the pilot want’s to maintain the original state of the aircraft, he has to actually make an adjustment and put it back.
So, the physics may be the same, the reaction is different which is what the discussion was originally about, wasn’t it? Does the pilot have to adjust for weapons fire. A fighter pilot keeps moving forward if the weapons fire somehow effects his aircraft, while a helicopter pilot would have to manually navigate to hold position if weapons fire somehow effects the aircraft.
If you are driving your car at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, will they come on? If they do, then would that not mean the light from them is travelling at double the speed of light?
I have, however, heard of some of the newer, faster fighter jets that have overflown their own machine gun bursts. That would be the pits…shooting down your own plane! :-0
>>All I need is for someone to ask a question about Willie Dixon and this’ll be the best day ever>>
While I don’t recall if they cover Mr. Dixon, you had your shot with the Foghat blues drop yesterday, Brainiac. Even had your love of the blues in mind when I shared it (the Atari pic I found also didn’t hurt). Of course, you could always pull a Marcoe and comment about it in this Open Thread. No apologies necessary.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Good morning! Can’t sleep, so early coffee. Bacon later!
Hiya, Fritzie! I couldn’t sleep last night either, we almost crossed paths in the night. So which is worse, not being able to go to sleep or waking up too early?
It’s no wonder I couldn’t sleep either, between this bronchitis and you two making all that racket!
So sorry, you know how I just hate to disturb anyone.
Just don’t ask what it was that we did to cause the noise! We played Yahtzee!
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…roll those bones indeed!
HA! And we never even reached the Twister part of the evening!
I told you to quit reading my mind! I had actually first typed “If it were me, we’d be playing Twister!”, but I went for the pun instead…
Punstermeister! Jawohl!
Thank goodness no one mentioned Chutes n Ladders.
Or Hungry Hungry Hippo … though that’s probably best for the Christie thread anyway.
Morning. Coffees good. Thanks Fritz.
Danke!
Francis Bacon,Fritz?
Nope…Porky Pig bacon!
“Th-th-th-that’s all folks!”
That’s our Mitt!
http://www.ddotomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/no-bullshit.jpg
The thing I don’t like about Romney/Gingrich is their inconsistency. I don’t know when they’re going to take off to the left, in search of “compromise.” Normally, I’d prefer the Executive to be of one party, and the Legislature to be of the opposing party. (It helps to reduce the number of new laws, I think.) I have zero faith that, once in office, these guys will be/stay true to conservative principles.
Mitt Romney the man who should be primarying Obama for the democrat nomination. Newter Gingrich the candidate Obama derangement syndrome hath rot. No good can come of it but as a newly minted non party affiliated voter I can say I told you so.
… or if ya like slightly rougher covers …
Wake up,Magnus!
http://niagararegionontariocanada.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lindas-sunny-side-up-eggs-bacon-home-fries-toast-5-bucks.jpg
I’m awake, now! -fritz-, Scott, yer takin’ good care of Maggie, here!
My pleasure. I’m going to have to start back with the krullers though. Bacon’s getting expensive.
Pork Piker!
Attempting to find a comeback for that left me with either something extremely stupid or something very dirty. So…..I’ll pass.
Blueberry muffins for Tink!
http://andsometimesicook.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/one_bowl_blueberry_muffins1.jpg
I might have one of those, too; but only one. I have to stay “regular,” you know.
I would say that depends on where you put ‘em, Magnus!
It will be a looooooooooong time, indeed, before I eat another muffin.
TWSS!
I really gotta think through my replies before posting them!
- “Walk This Way”
You ain’t seen nothin’.
Well, now Scott, you shouldn’t have. Thanks for thinking of me this cold winter’s morning!
In other news: http://z6.co.uk/thatoldblackmagic
Closing the barn door after the horse is gone: http://z6.co.uk/1h8
Tarot instructor also. Boy, you think she would have seen this coming…
Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach . . .
Those who can’t teach, teach college!
Only 40 years? People just have no stick-to-it-tive-ness anymore.
Your morning Kultur…no not yogurt!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jv3lL6imzU
Fastoso! Grandioso! Giunta! Giunta!
Or, something like that.
Can you Handel this?Let the Bright Seraphim…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SNj1AQ8r3w
Ed. combined the statement with this link and deleted the comment with the broken link. Use your reply button… being stubborn is not endearing. Anyone smart enough to link to a YouTube video is smart enough to use the frakking Reply button.
That was good! When will she be “bach?”
Sure thing,crybaby!
Oh, Scott M, must you continually walk the line, going so far this time as to call an admin a disparaging name? I wasn’t the “Ed” comment above, by the way.
James Bond set to Andy Griffith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl2flZOJ1Y
No idea how this works but by God it does.
For Eric!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7K4jH7NqUw
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/31/game-day-will-fl-make-the-hypocritical-choice/
Interesting but I wouldn’t call it hypocritical. Our electorate, the US electorate, is notoriously finicky; hence the discussions for/against pure democracy/Electoral College. I bet half of them don’t even remember or even know the scandals of Rick Scott.
Anyone want to venture over to a certain Hollywood thread and watch my rating sink like a Sherman tank was tied to it? I just wrote that Shakespeare in Love deserved the Oscar over Saving Private Ryan.
You ever see that part in Frankenstein with the villagers, torches, and pitchforks?
Woke up feeling like poking the beast this morning, hmm, Ms. Thang?
I live for thrills.
I have heard that about you. That and various other assorted things . . .
wanks here: All true.
OOOOOOOOOOO baby!
Sorry for that outburst. My inner 50 year old rears his ugly head every now and again!
wanks here: “ugly”? Doubt it.
Would love to join your cause. Unless it’s Herr Nolte’s site, please be for to directing to thread.
Sorry, E. That’s where it be.
Oh, well. As that MFer’s got me completely blackballed there, even after one of his editors petitioned him to get me reinstated, sadly couldn’t help anyway. Need to get me one of those temp IP addresses.
If you haven’t already stated, please add from me: “A brilliant opening sequence does not a whole movie make, especially when Spielberg regurgitated so much from his Empire of the Sun in the subsequent scenes. Tom Stoppard = genius and his words flowed brilliantly through many great performances and scenes in Shakespeare in Love.”
Perfectly stated!
I left this for you over there:
Ugh. SiL was tedious at best…Cod-Shakespeare for the ‘hipsters’ who wouldn’t know real literature (or acting, for that matter) if a library fell on them. KatherineL had it right above — a one note rom-com anachronism.
SPR had some of the best 20 minutes of celluloid action ever…but it, too, has a last act that fails the narrative. “Earn this?” Really? feh.
I think I’ve said this before but when I first saw SPR, I thought it was great but as time went by I began to like it less and less. Bad tactics, stupid plot…out of all the D Day stories that were real, you couldn’t find one worth filming, Spielberg? “Betty Grabel, what a dish”, kiss my ass.
Agreed, Outlaw. I usually just turn it off after the invasion and put on Band of Brothers.
Wanks—I left you an apology over there…
*bows*
But really — Tom Stoppard did the rewrite. Credit the funny?
A riot . . .iss an ungly ting; undt, I tink iss about time dot vee had vun!
Eric is correct and I agree with you Wank. Although I loved Saving Private Ryan and it will be in my Bluray collection while Spakespeare will not, it is a superior quality film. That said, the Oscars should put weight onto the entertainment value as well, but I’m a guy so I’m biased against chick flicks
Mr. Turbo was right, as we expected. Cynthia Nixon is “clarifying” her earlier statements about her lifestyle “choice.”
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/cynthia-nixon-clarifies-comments-bisexuality-not-choice-151100531.html
Had she not bowed to the party line, er, “clarified,” she’d find herself not welcome in Hollyweird.
True that Herr Sgt. Major!
Anyone here seeing the movie Courageous? I hear great things but would like other opinions…it doesn’t recite a bunch of Biblical verses does it? I am married to a Budhist and if things get preachy I spend entirely too much time explaining what it all means and end up missing half the movie.
Saw it, no more Bible than its worthy predecessor Fireproof. Very much on that same line of thought. Fireproof = better marriage. Courageous = better fatherhood. Not as preachy as Facing the Giants or Flywheel. Christian movie making is getting better, but there remains some hokeyness that is hard to dismiss.
Great; but, when can I buy them at Wal-Mart?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/self-guided-bulle/
I would imagine it’s not very cost effective so you’ll not see these in your local 30-06 any time soon. But, for specialized sniper work, this is very cool indeed.
1984 called, they want their bullet back.
…made me laugh out loud.
It’s even more funny if you consider than Gene Simmons is the guy who shot the gun.
To quote Floyd,
This just in, Megan Kelly is still hot.
“No baby, me no love blue eyed foreigner long time! He have cat eyes!”
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/31/does-chinas-cat-eyed-boy-have-natural-night-vision/?intcmp=features#content
Wow, Newt had a baaaaaad night today.
I mean he had a REALLY bad night.
He won among staunch conservatives . . . and that’s it.
He could not move out from that group.
Mitt, however, could not pierce that group much. Brit Hume is right, if he wants to grab that group he needs to present a solid case FOR Mitt, other than electability.
So as good as it was for Mitt, he needs to remember he won this by a shock and awe negative campaign.
He needs to learn from this primary election.
Also, Ann Romney gave a rather simple speech thanking their various supporters and was more energetic than Mitt -but that ain’t exactly a Herculean task.
Jim Geraghty might be right, we’re could be running the wrong spouse.
Being from a state that doesn’t really matter one way or the other when it comes to the primaries, I just decided last election that I was simply going to vote for the name that wasn’t spelled “OBAMA” in the next election. Even if the name is Juicy Turd.
“Even if the name is Juicy Turd.”
Funny, very funny.
A box of Oreos and a glass of cold milk for the Doc!
Sorry, Fritz. He prefer’s Hershey Blossom Cookies. That is why I’m the Queen and you are my underlings.
You realize of course Rufus’ doesn’t recognize your authoritah, your highness.
Who voted you queen anyway?
http://www.threedonia.com/serfs-of-3d
It is written, thus it is so.
And, yes, Rufus doesn’t recognize it, but I hear I’m about to get a promotion (drone thread),
“She is the cookie queen” There it is. Right on our own website.
Technically, she’s got you cornered, Outlaw.
Just because you wrote it, doesn’t make it so…so sayuth I.
(I think Tracy wrote all of that…)
Your name is on the credit, which is ironic given your feelings about monarchy.
I’m a sucker for no-bakes too.
Did you say something about your underthings? He said in a cold sweat!
Not yet – that’s next.
Looks like my coughing fit woke me up just in time!
Go back to sleep. This is private!
I thought you were a colonel?
It’s a new ranking system. I’m a Private Colonel!
Notes on Newt’s speech:
-Newt brings up history as much as Mitt impersonates the android Data.
-Newt compared a “money campaign” to a “people’s campaign”.
-Newt appears to be getting back on message.
-Nice teleprompter jab.
-His daughter is getting on my nerves, for some reason.
-That Dec. of Ind. at the end of the speech felt kinda forced, but that’s just me.
He is a better speaker than Mitt.
Mitt would do better if he frowned more. His serious look is better than his “friendly” look.
Mrs. Firefly was just saying a similar thing. He can look milque-toasty when being polite.
On a side note: Anyone notice that Ann Romney seemed way more human than Callista Gingrich?
At least tonight.
I think it’s hilarious that you never see Callista more than 5 feet from Newt. It seems like she doesn’t trust him out of her sight at all (and who knows better than her what he’s capable of when out of sight of his wife)!
Callista rarely speaks while Ann is very vibrant.
Callista also looks more like, if you’ll excuse me, a smiling plastic doll at times.
Ann seems more like a real human.
Which is, ironically, the flip of their husbands*.
*I’m sticking with Mitt-is-an-emotionless-robot jokes.
It appears, and I can NOT confirm this, but it appears that Newt did not call Mitt to congratulate him on his win.
Take that back.
Know nothing on whether Newt called, but he did not congratulate him in his speech.
Two of my favorite topics tonight; Economics and Physics. All I need is for someone to ask a question about Willie Dixon and this’ll be the best day ever!
What is your favorite Willie Dixon song and also your favorite Willie Dixon album?
Tink! That was the exact, 100th comment!!
I’m just so sorry you have to discuss them with me
No, actually it’s great fun! This is how Galileo, Newton and Einstein worked this stuff out, with thought experiments.
So, think about it, Dr. Does the rocket “know” how powerful the jet engines are? Would a rocket fired from the ground, in a Ford Pinto traveling 25 mph, accelerate any differently? Have less force? A jet flying level at 1,200mph is the same as a jet, parked on the tarmac with its engines off as far as the rocket knows.
F = MA. The rocket has an F, its Mass times its Acceleration, and the aircraft has an F, its Mass times its Acceleration. If the aircraft is flying at a constant rate of speed and a constant altitude its acceleration is 0mph. Think of Outlaw, hovering in his helicopter. To a rocket it’s the same as an F-15 flying level at Mach 3.
Right but is the force of the weapon firing going to be enough to cause any noticeable change in the operation of the aircraft? I didn’t think we were discussing if there would be force imparted against the aircraft, I thought we were discussing how a pilot adjusts for it. I just don’t see how there would be a large enough change in the path of the aircraft to cause any notice.
As to helicopters, I’m totally with you on that part and that’s why I was asking Outlaw about how the pods operate. He cleared that up by explaining how the systems are designed to minimize friction at the time of launch as so most of the force is not being transferred to the aircraft itself. I would assume if I bolted a hellfire missile to the side of Outlaw’s helicopter and fired the thing, it would spit it around, cause it to crash, or do something like that assuming it wasn’t armed to explode and impart a whole new range of forces.
In a successful launch, any force that is applied to the aircraft from the weapon would be for such a short amount of time, that in the case of a jet, the thrust of the engines would cause the aircraft to recover any lost velocity so quickly you wouldn’t even notice the thing fired. A stationary helicopter doesn’t have the thrust of engines pushing the aircraft constantly in one direction like that, so there would need to be some actual adjustment made on the part of the navigator (human or automatic) to counter a firing weapon if for some reason the firing was powerful enough to move the helicopter.
Dr. Schplatt. I know you don’t believe me, but, for the purposes of this question, there is no difference between a hovering helicopter and an F-15 flying level at a constant rate of speed. None.
Think about the planet you are on. It is literally spinning at 1,000mph. That is an incredible mass spinning very quickly. If rocket engine “power” mitigates force by its mere presence, a force like the mass of a planet traveling at 1,000mph ought to eliminate everything. Yet, when you fire a gun you feel the opposite reaction.
In relation to exact time the force is applied to the aircraft and the physics at that exact moment, sure.
But an F-15 flying at 1,000 mph and hits a gust of headwind that causes the aircraft to slow to 975mph for 1 second. Almost immediately as soon as that gust of headwind is past, the aircraft is right back to 1,000 mph due to the force of the engines. A basically unnoticeable change to the path of the aircraft that required basically no adjustment from the pilot to return to the previous state.
A hovering helicopter hit by a gust of wind is moved back 10 feet. If the pilot want’s to maintain the original state of the aircraft, he has to actually make an adjustment and put it back.
So, the physics may be the same, the reaction is different which is what the discussion was originally about, wasn’t it? Does the pilot have to adjust for weapons fire. A fighter pilot keeps moving forward if the weapons fire somehow effects his aircraft, while a helicopter pilot would have to manually navigate to hold position if weapons fire somehow effects the aircraft.
Haven’t you forgotten Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion? Or, is that outside of this discussion?
If you are driving your car at the speed of light and turn on your headlights, will they come on? If they do, then would that not mean the light from them is travelling at double the speed of light?
Our -fritz-,brilliance traveling at the speed of dark.
Naw…just using an old Steven Wright gag.
I have, however, heard of some of the newer, faster fighter jets that have overflown their own machine gun bursts. That would be the pits…shooting down your own plane! :-0
Newer as in F-104s, from back in your day?
>>All I need is for someone to ask a question about Willie Dixon and this’ll be the best day ever>>
While I don’t recall if they cover Mr. Dixon, you had your shot with the Foghat blues drop yesterday, Brainiac. Even had your love of the blues in mind when I shared it (the Atari pic I found also didn’t hurt). Of course, you could always pull a Marcoe and comment about it in this Open Thread. No apologies necessary.
They had to cover Dixon. All the greats did; The Who, The Stones, Zeppelin, The Beatles, Allman Brothers…
Romney tries to appeal to the media . . . and sticks his foot in his mouth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289832/romney-im-not-concerned-about-very-poor-katrina-trinko#comment-bar
(Facepalm)