 |
|
|
|
Statement #22 - Happiest place on earth?
D | Monday, December 18, 2006
Cedar Point vs. Walt Disney World
Everyone loves Walt Disney World. No doubt. I love Walt Disney World. I've been a bunch of times and have tons of great memories at Disney World with the family. And indeed, it probably it "The Happiest Place on Earth." So why bother setting a comparison with Cedar Point? Because in one important respect Cedar Point is a superior theme park.
Disney World is for kids, while Cedar Point is for older thrill seekers (aka college students or college football players or anyone old enough to appreciate college football).
Yes, Disney World has 4 major theme parks, and a billion hotels, and 2 waterparks, six golf courses, and it's own heli-port. And yes, if I am five years old I want to go to Disney World more than I want to go to my own birthday party. And yes, nothing is cooler than Cinderella's Castle or the EPCOT ball (do you know what EPCOT stands for, because I knew when I was 7?). But does Disney have any real quality rides for adults or young adult thrill seekers? I made a list of all the "rides" I could think of that are "thrills" in Disney World (excluding water parks).
Cedar Point is the rollercoaster capital of the world. Cedar Point will have 17 coasters for the 2007 season - the most of any theme park in the world. Cedar Point is designed for the more mature thrill seeking public. Much like college football in that respect - designed for the thrill seeking public.
Disney World (only 5 real coasters)
Magic Kingdom
Space Mountain
Big Thunder Railroad
Splash Mountain
EPCOT
Test Track
Norway Ride (water ride)
Body Wars (motion simulator) MGM
Tower of Terror
Star Tours Rock'n'Roller Coaster Animal Kingdom
Expedition Everest
Cedar Point (15 coasters)
Blue Streak
Cedar Creek Mine Ride
Corkscrew
Disaster Transport
Gemini
Iron Dragon
Magnum XL-200
Mantis
Maverick (for 2007)
Mean Streak
Millennium Force
Raptor
Top Thrill Dragster
Wicked Twister
WildCat
(I didn't even include Jr. Gemini and Woodstock Express)
D | 12/18/2006 07:23:00 PM
| 1 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement #25 - They're poisonous nuts
D | Friday, December 15, 2006
Poisonous nuts vs. cold blooded reptilian handbag
Now some may fight me on this one, but I think our mascot is way cooler/scarier/sexier/poisonous than yours. You have an alligator, which some might see as deadly. We have a nut - mind you, a poisonous nut. Death by nut, now that is scary. I think what it is that makes the buckeye mascot more deadly and scary than the gator is the surprise factor. Whereas every fool knows alligators can be dangerous, no one expects a nut to be dangerous. So you get complacent. You let down your guard. You think, "Oh, its just a nutty planty seedy thing-a-ma-jig. No big deal." Then you pop on in you mouth and BAM! You on the fast track to a slow and painful death by poisoning.
Nonetheless, gators can also be kind of lame. For example:
Everyone knows that gators are big and dangerous. But we often forget that they are expensive designer handbags.
Everyone knows gators live in swamps, have two sets of eyelids, and eat zebras. But we often forget that even a random kid with orange shorts and velcro shoes can hold their jaws shut.
And does Hanna Barbera's Wally Gator ring any bells? This is just a mockery of any kind of scariness.
So look at this buckeye - and tremble in fear.
D | 12/15/2006 06:33:00 PM
| 1 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 on 15 - Top Christmas Songs
D
Christmas time. With singing.
15. Jingle Bell Rock
Opposed to the classic Jingle Bells, I prefer this version. Its like a 50's drive-in diner.
14. Its Beginning to Look Alot Like Christmas
I don't know, but I don't think it actually is Christmas until I hear this song on the radio or in a department store.
13. Run Run Rudolph
Every time I hear this song I think of the McAllister family running through O'Hare airport.
12. Dance of the Sugar-Plum Fairy
Care of The Nutcracker, this is a fun little number of Christmas mischief (or at least I think so). And this year will mark my first viewing of The Nutcracker live. Unless my parents took me to see it when I was very small.
11. Good King Wenceslas
Honestly, I have no idea who Good King Wenceslas is or was and frankly I don't care (but I will look it up for all who do care). But I like his song. Whether he was or not, I will picture him in my mind as a jolly old fat man.
10. Hark! The Herald Angles Sing
This one makes me think of the Charlie Brown Christmas show.
9. White Christmas
Why is this on my list? Because as someone who was raised in the Midwest, I always enjoyed the an actual white Christmas. I loved the snow and playing outside and building huge snow forts. We had this very steep hill near my house where all the neighborhood kids would gather and go sledding. Good times.
8. Little Drummer Boy
Any song where you can sing the words "Ba rum bum bum bum" is sweet in my book.
7. I'll Be Home for Christmas
I don't know if this memory is true, or if I just made it up but I think my family owned a tape of The Beach Boys Christmas. We would play it while we decorated the tree. And I remember this one.
6. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas
The quintessential Christmas ballad. This song is relaxed and chill and calming. This song makes me think of how great the holiday season can be.
5. We Three Kings
I don't know why I like this song. Maybe because its in a meter of three and has that cool triplet pattern.
4. Silent Night
A good female vocalist version of this song can send chills down your spine.
3. You're a Mean One Mr. Grinch
Classic. So. Classic.
2. Sleigh Ride
Here's the story. In highschool we had three bands and every year at the Christmas concert the best band, Symphonic Winds, would play an encore of "Sleigh Ride." And it was so cool. Often times we had fake snow which would fall from the rafters. I progressed my way up through the bands and was in Winds for only one year, and I only got to play Sleigh Ride once, but I can remember how neat it was. Also, there is a horse whinny at the end of the song traditional done by the first trumpet. And my year in Winds I... was not the first trumpet, but... no, I didn't get to do the horse noise, but ... I did sit right next to him.
1. Carol of the Bells
The most bad-ass of all Christmas songs. This song simply rocks. Also the closing scene of my favorite West Wing episode (Noel) features a group of carolers singing this song. The camera move is this wicked angled pan motion which returns to Josh and Donna. Awesome.
Also receiving votes: What Child is This?, Baby its Cold Outside (any version but Jessica Simpsons)
D | 12/15/2006 03:20:00 PM
| 3 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 Son of Beast will be minus loop
D | Thursday, December 14, 2006
As an aftermath to the accident that occurred this July, park management has decided that Son of Beast will make a number of modifications, most notably the loss of it's signature feature, the loop. This will allow the park to use lighter trains, theoretically providing a smoother ride.
The choice to eliminate the loop from the ride is an interesting one. The official report (download here in PDF, 5.4MB, and with some interesting photos) did not call for the loop to go, merely some reinforcing of supports. The park made this decision. Interesting. The ride has been billed, repeatedly, as the only wooden coaster with a loop (although the loop was steel). In my mind, this created quite a distinction for Son of Beast. This Enquirer article asks an ACE rep if he feels the ride will lose notoriety by the loss of it's signature element. He seems to think not. He's probably right.
While I am disappointed that there will be no more loop, I am delighted to hear the ride will (possibly) be smoother. Half the fun of a wooden coaster is the sheer violence of the track, but Son of Beast was often bordering on injury. I have ridden the ride many many times and often it felt like the ride was too fast and too violent. Improvements in that arena will be noticeable and make the ride that much more enjoyable.
D | 12/14/2006 05:36:00 PM
| 1 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement #26 - What kind of a name is "Urban"?
D
"Jim" vs. "Urban"
I'm not even talking about coaching records or winning seasons or anything related to football yet (which will all come later). I'm talking about some parents out there who decided to name their child "Urban." Why? What a weird name. Maybe that's how they do it down in Florida, but up here in the Midwest we have normal names. Like Jim and Woody. When you hear the word "urban" you building that block out the sun filled with rude people who live in tiny little sardine cans and hurry back and forth to their mindless jobs. When you hear the word "jim" you think of Grandma and apple pie and playing touch football over the Fourth of July weekend (or alternatively, a place where you go to work out).
You guys have "of, pertaining to, or designating, a city or town." And we have Jim.
You guys have smog, traffic, and skyscrapers. And we have Jim.
You guys have crime, subways, and bums. And we have Jim.
You guys have urban development, urban sprawl, and urban legends. And we have Jim.
You guys have Mordor, Gotham City, and Mos Eisley. And we have Jim.
Now, some really annoying folks out there might point out that "Urban" was also born in Ohio, just like Jim. To those people, let me say that those who use the internet to look up meaningless and mundane trivia lead lives of quiet desperation and ultimately will never prosper.
D | 12/14/2006 10:40:00 AM
| 2 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who puts a plane on a conveyor belt anyway?
D | Wednesday, December 13, 2006
I read this "riddle" about a plane on a conveyor belt and it is drive me nuts for about 2 hours until I realized my problem and suddenly found peace. I am quite sure I have the answer correct, but I wanted to toss this up to the readers of derekwalden.com and see if it sparks any discussion (I am sure Alex and my Dad will weigh in, as "science nerds"). Let me lay this out for you:
Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off? (Assume friction from the wheels is negligible.)
My thoughts (highlight to read):
Discussion
Either you think the plane will take off or you think it won't take off, but everyone seems to agree that planes fly due to lift (Bernoulli's Principle) caused by the air movement over the wing. To fly, a plane must have air moving over its wings. If the plane remains stationary, then there is no airflow. But if the plane moves, then there is airflow. So the real question is, Does the plane move?
School Number One - Plane remains stationary
The conveyor belt in this scenario counteracts all the movement of the plane. No mater how much thrust the turbines create, the conveyor moves in the opposite direction and the plane never moves. The plane remains stationary. If the plane is stationary, there is no airflow, thus the plane will not take off.
This analogy likens the plane's wheels to the wheels of a car. Much like when you get your engine checked for emission regulations, the mechanics places your cars tires onto large free-spinning metal drums. No matter how much gas you give the engine, your car will never move. There is no airflow around your car.
School Number Two - Plane moves, despite the conveyor
The trick here is to see the plane as moving air, not ground. The car analogy cited above is flawed because an airplanes wheels are free spinning. Unlike a car, the airplane wheel provide no propulsion, they simply exist to minimize friction. The jet turbines suck in air and push air out and provide all propulsion (doing nothing to the ground). A few examples help me see this point.
A. Imagine a plane that is already flying with its landing gear down (a prop plane if you like). You come up underneath it and look at the wheels. They are not moving, just hanging there. You spin them with your hand in the opposite direction the plane is flying. Does anything happen to the plane? No matter how fast you spin the wheels, the flight of the plane does not change.
To continue this example, imagine that same plane coming in for a landing. It is traveling 100MPH. Imagine it is going to land on a conveyor moving 100MPH in the opposite direction. When the plane's wheels touch the conveyor, does the forward motion of the plane suddenly stop? No, it keeps moving forward, but the wheels spin like crazy.
B. You are rollerblading on a treadmill. In your hands, you are holding a rope tied to a wall in front of you. You start out completely stopped. As you pull on the rope, the treadmill starts moving. Your wheels spin, but you move forward with each pull on the rope because your position is relative to the rope you are pulling and not the treadmill moving below you. Even imagine that the treadmill is spinning 10x faster than you are pulling the rope. You continue to move forward, while your wheels simply spin faster and faster. The rope in this analogy is air used by the jet. With those examples in mind, no matter how fast the conveyor spins backwards, the plane will move forward. Once it moves forwards at a speed great enough to create the necessary lift, it will take off. In reality, if you watched the event and didn't see the conveyor (or didn't know of it's existence) the takeoff would look exactly like normal.
My Answer
The plane moves forward and will take off.
Support
The Straight Dope, Google, Boing Boing, TXFX.net
One more thing
While I believe I have this one worked out, I would like someone to explain to me how come Nightrider's car doesn't shoot through the back of his van. I think this stunt is impossible. You've all seen this on TV or in the movies. A car driving on the highway drives up a ramp and onto a transport vehicle nicely parking itself in the back (in Nightrider's case, a van - but in the case of those Chevy commercials, a semi-truck auto carrier). I maintain that if a car was traveling at 60MPH and drove up a ramp, it would be traveling 60MPH relative to the ramp and catapult itself forward. Imagine taking a wind-up car, cranking up the wheels full blast, and dropping it on the ground. The car shoots forward. Think of those moving walkways at the airport. Once you step on it, you move faster.
So there you have it. Let the discussion begin as I return to ConLaw.
D | 12/13/2006 11:57:00 AM
| 2 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement #30 - Heisman
D | Sunday, December 10, 2006
Horvath, Janowicz, Cassady, Griffin (x2), George, and Smith vs. Wuerffel and Spurrier
That's 7 against 2. Last night, Troy won for 2006 making Ohio State tied with Notre Dame and USC as the only schools who have had seven Heisman winners. OSU does have the only repeat winner, Archie Griffin.
Pat says the only way to make this post funny is to say, "Derek Walden for Heisman." Apparently that is funny to Pat.
D | 12/10/2006 01:17:00 PM
| 0 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement #31 - The Onion
D | Saturday, December 09, 2006
BCS Determines No Team Worthy of Facing Ohio State
According to The Onion, the BCS system is working properly because the computers have determined, "No team in America deserves to even step on the same field as Ohio State, let alone actually play in a game against them."
Well that says it all. And if The Onion says it, it must be true. My favorite fictional quote from the article, from Florida Coach Urban Meyer:
"We don't deserve to play Ohio State. Period," Meyer said, adding that though Florida had a tough schedule, being the SEC champion was not the same thing as being Ohio State.
D | 12/09/2006 10:05:00 PM
| 0 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No USC
D
Everybody knows that with the Buckeyes defeat of Michigan, we are heading back to the Fiesta Bowl to play for the National Championship. And everyone was expecting us to play USC. But, and this is what makes college football the best sporting event known to man, they lost yesterday to UCLA (13-9). So bye bye USC. Hello...somebody.
The world will find out later tonight who OSU will play for the championship as the polls are tallied and inputted into the BCS system. Apparently the computer rankings will be too close to make much difference, so the human polls (Coaches and Harris) will rule the day. The debate comes down to Michigan (11-1) or Florida (12-1). Before the BCS tells us who is playing, let me throw in my two cents.
1. OSU should play Florida for the National Championship. The reasons, in my mind, are two-fold. OSU already played Michigan and beat them. You had your chance, you lost. But more importantly, Florida won their conference with today's victory over Arkansas (a very good team in my opinion). I can't condone giving Michigan the chance to play for the National Championship because they did not win The Big Ten. Imagine, for a moment (in complete fantasy land), that OSU plays Michigan and Michigan wins. The banner they would hang would read "2006 National Champion, Big Ten Runner-up." No, no, no. And besides, what would be better than beating your Dad's alma mater for the National Championship. Go Bucks.
For all you visual learners out there, I summed up the BCS Championship Game History in pictures:
So there you have it.
2. The BCS sucks. I hate it. Its dumb. I remember when they first implemented it back in 99 or 00 and I thought it was dumb then too. A better solution - 8 team playoff. Use the BCS system to determine the top 8 teams and have them play the last two weeks in December with the championship game in January. I've solved all problems and made everyone happy - you are all welcome. As someone on SportsCenter said earlier today, "An eight team playoff would make college football the most exciting sport in America." I think it already is, but with a playoff I could not agree more.
I leave you with this amazing aerial photograph of Ohio Stadium during the Michigan game. As I like to say, "The Happiest Place on Earth."
D | 12/03/2006 07:59:00 AM
| 3 comments | Post your comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
