PDA

View Full Version : Horrible error in a study guide



swampyankee
2012-Mar-10, 11:35 AM
I'm taking the Praxis II General Science exam later this morning, so I bought a study guide (because of the draconian provisions of the DCMA I'm mentioning neither the title nor the publisher)

One of the questions was, to paraphrase, "why are astronauts weightless?" The correct answer was, again paraphrasing, "because they're so far from Earth." <rude noise>

I saw this when I was working through their sample test, jumped back in my chair and burst out "...the ....." which made the other people in the room (faculty lunch room; I was substituting) take notice.

Needless to say, when I get back from the test, I'll be sending them a less than complimentary note.

Solfe
2012-Mar-10, 12:28 PM
I am taking a Spanish class and the textbook has some remarkable typos. I say remarkable because it is rather sad to make one mistake in Spanish, then make a completely different mistake in the associated English text.

"Le le, teh teh" could be laughter but due to the context, I doubt it.

My teacher is seriously considering authors/publishers because the newest edition has more typos that our current version.

Perikles
2012-Mar-10, 12:39 PM
Needless to say, when I get back from the test, I'll be sending them a less than complimentary note.OK I'll admit I donīt know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting there is a grammatical error, or just appalled at the seriously inadequate physics in the answer?

grapes
2012-Mar-10, 03:25 PM
OK I'll admit I donīt know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting there is a grammatical error, or just appalled at the seriously inadequate physics in the answer?I wouldn't call it inadequate, I would call it a serious error! :)

Astronauts on the ISS are probably less than 5% farther from the center of the earth than we are--and the force of gravity diminished by only twice that.

KaiYeves
2012-Mar-10, 03:39 PM
You would be weightless if you were out in deep space and too far from any stars or planets to be affected by their gravity, but that's not why astronauts on the space station are weightless.

Perikles
2012-Mar-10, 04:23 PM
I wouldn't call it inadequate, I would call it a serious error! :)

Astronauts on the ISS are probably less than 5% farther from the center of the earth than we are--and the force of gravity diminished by only twice that.Yes, but in the absence of a specific location, you are surely entitled to assume far enough away from Earth for the gravitational field to be negligible. That would be an inadequate answer. If you assume the ISS, then, yes, a serious error.

grapes
2012-Mar-10, 05:15 PM
Yes, but in the absence of a specific location, you are surely entitled to assume far enough away from Earth for the gravitational field to be negligible. That would be an inadequate answer. but but you don't have to be weightless if you're far from the earth, you could be in another gravity field (on the moon for example), or experiencing acceleration (because of rockets, or possibly some centripetal force).
If you assume the ISS, then, yes, a serious error.that's been the limit for probably over 99% of the astronauts' weightless experiences though. Regardless, the distance from the earth has almost nothing to do with it, because it doesn't imply weightlessness necessarily.

swampyankee
2012-Mar-10, 06:11 PM
The question is specifically about weightlessness in orbit. Oh, and I think I passed the exam, if my explanation of why calcium chloride and potassium nitrate form conducting solutions in water while sucrose doesn't is vaguely correct.

Jens
2012-Mar-12, 12:54 AM
Yes, but in the absence of a specific location, you are surely entitled to assume far enough away from Earth for the gravitational field to be negligible. That would be an inadequate answer. If you assume the ISS, then, yes, a serious error.

But actually, you aren't entitled to do that. The incorrect answer they provided is true in some cases but untrue in others. But the other answer ("because they are in free fall") is true in all cases, so I would say it's the correct answer.

swampyankee
2012-Mar-12, 12:58 AM
But actually, you aren't entitled to do that. The incorrect answer they provided is true in some cases but untrue in others. But the other answer ("because they are in free fall") is true in all cases, so I would say it's the correct answer.

Of course, that's the answer they didn't include.

Squink
2012-Mar-12, 01:39 AM
Question and answer leads to incorrect generalization:

Q: I am standing on a neutron star, am I weightless?
A: Yes, "because I am so far from Earth."

swampyankee
2012-Mar-12, 02:35 AM
OK I'll admit I donīt know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting there is a grammatical error, or just appalled at the seriously inadequate physics in the answer?

I wouldn't consider either a minor grammatical error or a typographical error (in another part of the guide, they referred to "Nobel," vs "noble" gases) serious enough to bring it up the BAUT Forum. I'm appalled at the physics in the answer the guide claimed was "right."

whimsyfree
2012-Mar-12, 03:38 AM
but but you don't have to be weightless if you're far from the earth, you could be in another gravity field (on the moon for example), or experiencing acceleration (because of rockets, or possibly some centripetal force). that's been the limit for probably over 99% of the astronauts' weightless experiences though. Regardless, the distance from the earth has almost nothing to do with it, because it doesn't imply weightlessness necessarily.

Weight itself requires definition. Several posters suggest that bodies in free fall are weightless, yet I doubt that most native speakers of English would accept that their weight changes when they, for example, jump off a chair. If weight is the force acting on a body due to gravity then objects in free fall are not weightless. If weight it the force something else (such as the ground) exerts on a body to keep it at a constant gravitational potential, then bodies in free fall are weightless.

Jens
2012-Mar-12, 04:20 AM
In another part of the guide, they referred to "Nobel," vs "noble" gases.

That would not necessarily be an error, if they were talking about the speeches people give at the award ceremony.

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 09:12 AM
But actually, you aren't entitled to do that. The incorrect answer they provided is true in some cases but untrue in others. But the other answer ("because they are in free fall") is true in all cases, so I would say it's the correct answer.I don't see why not, to be honest. Without specifying a location in space, I think I am entitled to assume a location out of range of any significant gravitational field. This is the condition of almost all of space. I donīt see why I should be expected to assume the ISS or anywhere else.


I wouldn't consider either a minor grammatical error or a typographical error .. serious enough to bring it up the BAUT Forum. I agree, but was totally baffled by the OP with


I ... jumped back in my chair and burst out "...the ....." .

which made me wonder whether there was some issue with 'Earth' and 'The Earth'. Obviously not. Though there is a BAUT thread on the definite article.

grapes
2012-Mar-12, 09:39 AM
Weight itself requires definition. Several posters suggest that bodies in free fall are weightless, yet I doubt that most native speakers of English would accept that their weight changes when they, for example, jump off a chair. Nor would they say they "lost weight" by taking a space trip. :)
If weight is the force acting on a body due to gravity then objects in free fall are not weightless. If weight it the force something else (such as the ground) exerts on a body to keep it at a constant gravitational potential, then bodies in free fall are weightless.The question from the OP used the term "weightless"--there's only been a handful of times in space flight history when their answer would even apply--and the majority of that time, they were on the moon where they weren't weightless (now that I've said this, I'm not sure it's true--some of the on surface time is offset by the astronaut left behind)

HenrikOlsen
2012-Mar-12, 09:48 AM
I don't see why not, to be honest. Without specifying a location in space, I think I am entitled to assume a location out of range of any significant gravitational field. This is the condition of almost all of space. I donīt see why I should be expected to assume the ISS or anywhere else.
The question specified astronauts, which specified a sphere less than half a million km from Earth (no one's been farther away then the Moon), even at that distance the gravitational field of the Earth still gives them an acceleration of about 1.5\times 10^{-3}ms^{-2} which is definitely not weightless.
The ISS (and LEO in general) is assumed as that's the only place to find astronauts now.

kzb
2012-Mar-12, 12:36 PM
But is the "study guide" sourced from the same people who set the exams?

If so, there are probably students putting correct answers down but are being marked wrong.

I mean, you probably put down that sodium choride solution conducts electricity because it forms ions in solution, whereas sucrose does not and therefore its solutions do not conduct very well. That would be a correct response at this level.

But if the exam markers have a "correct answer" in front of them that sodium is a metal and sucrose is not, you are scr***d.

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 01:10 PM
The ISS (and LEO in general) is assumed as that's the only place to find astronauts now.I hear what you say, but the assumption of the ISS makes the answer very wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that the assumption made by the person writing the question was that this is a theoretical or future astronaut in deep space. That's how I read it, but I'm always in a minority, usually of one.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Mar-12, 01:26 PM
The whole point is that the answer is wrong. Distance has nothing to do with weightlessness.

grapes
2012-Mar-12, 02:21 PM
Wait, there is maybe more to this--was this a multiple choice question? What were the other "wrong" answers?

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 03:36 PM
The whole point is that the answer is wrong. Distance has nothing to do with weightlessness.I don't get this. If the astronaut were are a distance of (say) 2 lightyears from the earth, are you saying he/she would not be weightless?

caveman1917
2012-Mar-12, 04:01 PM
I don't get this. If the astronaut were are a distance of (say) 2 lightyears from the earth, are you saying he/she would not be weightless?

It depends. If their spaceship is accelerating at 1g, they are not weightless, it's equivalent to standing on the surface of the earth. If they are free-floating around, they are weightless, which they also are when falling from a high building on earth. As Henrik says distance has nothing to do with it, proper acceleration does (which you can have or not have anywhere on earth or in space).

caveman1917
2012-Mar-12, 04:16 PM
The correct answer is: because they are travelling along a geodesic.

Incidentally this error seems widespread. Back in high school (or whatever the equivalent of when you're 14) our physics teacher said the exact same thing, that astronauts were weightless because there was no gravity in space. When i then asked "then why doesn't the moon fly away?" i got thrown out of class for being difficult to the teacher, go figure..

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 04:24 PM
It depends. If their spaceship is accelerating at 1g, they are not weightless, it's equivalent to standing on the surface of the earth. If they are free-floating around, they are weightless, which they also are when falling from a high building on earth. As Henrik says distance has nothing to do with it, proper acceleration does (which you can have or not have anywhere on earth or in space).Yes, of course, that's exactly what I thought. My question assumed, reasonably, that there was no acceleration of the spacecraft. I find it very strange that you and Henrick both say distance has nothing to do with it, because it obviously has, the gravitational effect being proportional to the inverse square of that distance. I must be missing something here, everyone seems to be making different assumption to me.

moog
2012-Mar-12, 04:40 PM
I find it very strange that you and Henrick both say distance has nothing to do with it, because it obviously has, the gravitational effect being proportional to the inverse square of that distance.

Nobody is stating distance has nothing to do with it.

Even 2 light years from the earth you would still be feeling the force of gravity from our solar system and the galaxy.
The reason an astronaut in the ISS is weightless is because he is in free fall and accelerating at exactly the same rate as the ISS.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Mar-12, 04:41 PM
I must be missing something here, everyone seems to be making different assumption to me.
I think it may be different interpretations of the word weightless.

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 04:56 PM
Distance has nothing to do with weightlessness.


As Henrik says distance has nothing to do with it,


Nobody is stating distance has nothing to do with it.OK. If you say so. :confused:

HenrikOlsen
2012-Mar-12, 05:34 PM
Different "it"'s.

Distance has nothing to with with weightlessness and nobody is saying distance has nothing to do with the size of gravitational attraction.

Weightlessness is not lack of gravitational attraction.

cjameshuff
2012-Mar-12, 05:36 PM
Nobody is stating distance has nothing to do with it.

A couple people have done so...and they're quite right. On a rogue iceball two light years away, you won't be weightless. On an accelerating spacecraft anywhere, you won't be weightless. No astronauts have even been far enough from Earth to experience an apparently weightless environment due to sheer distance, if they managed to hold a stationary position with respect to Earth. The answer is just plain completely incorrect.

NEOWatcher
2012-Mar-12, 05:46 PM
I think a lot of people are confusing a distance away from "any" gravitational body from the first statement that specifically said "Earth".
While we can get into the minutia of "negligable" and degrees of effect, the question and answer as stated is absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 06:03 PM
A couple people have done so...and they're quite right. On a rogue iceball two light years away, you won't be weightless. On an accelerating spacecraft anywhere, you won't be weightless. No astronauts have even been far enough from Earth to experience an apparently weightless environment due to sheer distance, if they managed to hold a stationary position with respect to Earth. The answer is just plain completely incorrect.Why is it that everybody keeps asserting that the answer in wrong, when nobody is saying it is right? Obviously all these examples are correct, but the question in the OP surely makes the (reasonable) assumptions that 1) you are not accelerating; 2) you are not near a rogue iceball or anything else; 3) you are not near Earth and 4) it is irrelevant where astronauts have been so far.

What is the difference between "an apparently weightless environment due to sheer distance" and "a weightless environment "?

HenrikOlsen
2012-Mar-12, 06:08 PM
That the question specifically asked about astronauts and weightlessness makes 3 and 4 unreasonable assumptions.

I still think our disconnect is in different interpretations of the word weightlessness.

caveman1917
2012-Mar-12, 06:15 PM
Yes, of course, that's exactly what I thought. My question assumed, reasonably, that there was no acceleration of the spacecraft.

But if i'm in a spaceship that's only a couple of miles above the ground (say, crashing into the earth - ignore air resistance), i will also be weightless, hence distance per se has nothing to do with it.


I find it very strange that you and Henrick both say distance has nothing to do with it, because it obviously has, the gravitational effect being proportional to the inverse square of that distance.

Neither does the gravitational effect have anything to do with it, other than that it makes geodesics look curved.


Nobody is stating distance has nothing to do with it.

I certainly am :)


Even 2 light years from the earth you would still be feeling the force of gravity from our solar system and the galaxy.

No you don't, you never "feel the force of gravity", gravity is not a force. What you're feeling is EM in nature, the incompressibility of the earth imparts a contact force on your feet. That's the force you're feeling, not the "force of gravity". It is no different from the force the floor of a spaceship imparts on your feet when it's accelerating.

caveman1917
2012-Mar-12, 06:21 PM
What is the difference between "an apparently weightless environment due to sheer distance" and "a weightless environment "?

I think you might have missed "hold a stationary position with respect to Earth". A worldline given by holding a stationary position with respect to Earth becomes a geodesic in the limit of infinite distance, and thus it represents weightlessness.

Weight is a pseudoforce, it is the result of being in a frame with proper acceleration, not unlike the centrifugal pseudoforce being a result of being in a rotating frame. That pseudoforce disappears (you become weightless) whenever you enter a frame with no proper acceleration, in order words when you follow a geodesic, which you can do just as well by floating around lightyears away as by orbiting the earth at the height of the ISS as by jumping up 20cm from the ground. It really has nothing to do with distance :)

Luckmeister
2012-Mar-12, 07:06 PM
If the Praxis II General Science exam was designed to be taken by 8 year olds, that kind of study guide answer would be almost forgivable, but not when the test is intended for aspiring science teachers. But that's just a study guide. I'm wondering what the equivalent question in the actual test is and what the acceptable answer would be.

Perikles
2012-Mar-12, 07:10 PM
I still think our disconnect is in different interpretations of the word weightlessness.Yes, I think you are right.


I think you might have missed "hold a stationary position with respect to Earth". A worldline given by holding a stationary position with respect to Earth becomes a geodesic in the limit of infinite distance, and thus it represents weightlessness.

Weight is a pseudoforce, it is the result of being in a frame with proper acceleration, not unlike the centrifugal pseudoforce being a result of being in a rotating frame. That pseudoforce disappears (you become weightless) whenever you enter a frame with no proper acceleration, in order words when you follow a geodesic, which you can do just as well by floating around lightyears away as by orbiting the earth at the height of the ISS as by jumping up 20cm from the ground. It really has nothing to do with distance :)Ah - OK, thanks for the explanation. :)

Usher
2012-Mar-12, 07:31 PM
... you never "feel the force of gravity", gravity is not a force...


Perhaps I'm quoting you out of context, but I would disagree with this statement in general. After work, I will start a new thread to pursue it.

cjameshuff
2012-Mar-12, 08:15 PM
Why is it that everybody keeps asserting that the answer in wrong, when nobody is saying it is right?

Well...because it is obviously, terribly, completely wrong.



Obviously all these examples are correct, but the question in the OP surely makes the (reasonable) assumptions that 1) you are not accelerating; 2) you are not near a rogue iceball or anything else; 3) you are not near Earth and 4) it is irrelevant where astronauts have been so far.

These are not natural assumptions. The question is about astronauts, so it's natural to assume that the locations under consideration are those near Earth, distances that astronauts have actually been to. And the first is actually sufficient alone to produce a weightless environment, regardless of the distance. If you're not accelerating, you could be orbiting or falling straight down or in a hyperbolic flyby trajectory and be mere centimeters from the surface, right next to people walking around, and have a completely weightless environment. Why is it natural to assume something that'll produce a weightless environment at any distance? Their chosen answer actually seems to indicate that they assumed a fixed location, not freefall.



What is the difference between "an apparently weightless environment due to sheer distance" and "a weightless environment "?

"if they managed to hold a stationary position with respect to Earth"

And one of them can only occur at some arbitrary distance set by what you consider the minimum allowable acceleration for a weightless environment. The other is what everybody actually talks about when they mean weightless environments, and is what astronauts have actually experienced.

whimsyfree
2012-Mar-12, 08:56 PM
Nor would they say they "lost weight" by taking a space trip. :)

They would likely have pause for thought once space travel was introduced to the scenario. The problem with the original question is that it uses the word "weight" without defining it when the common understanding of the word is unsuited to the question. The common understanding of the word is unscientific and basically a synonym for mass. I'm not sure the word has a general accepted scientific meaning.


The question from the OP used the term "weightless"--there's only been a handful of times in space flight history when their answer would even apply--and the majority of that time, they were on the moon where they weren't weightless (now that I've said this, I'm not sure it's true--some of the on surface time is offset by the astronaut left behind)

They spent a fair while in free fall getting there and back.

whimsyfree
2012-Mar-12, 09:26 PM
I think you might have missed "hold a stationary position with respect to Earth". A worldline given by holding a stationary position with respect to Earth becomes a geodesic in the limit of infinite distance, and thus it represents weightlessness.


I think I stated it better. A body doesn't need to hold a stationary position with respect to Earth to "feel the force of gravity". Consider a ball rolling on a table. It feels the force of the table despite not holding a stationary position relative to the Earth. I was wrong to say "constant gravitational potential". A ball accelerating down a ramp still feels some of the force it would feel if the ramp were horizontal.


Weight is a pseudoforce, it is the result of being in a frame with proper acceleration, not unlike the centrifugal pseudoforce being a result of being in a rotating frame. That pseudoforce disappears (you become weightless) whenever you enter a frame with no proper acceleration, in order words when you follow a geodesic, which you can do just as well by floating around lightyears away as by orbiting the earth at the height of the ISS as by jumping up 20cm from the ground. It really has nothing to do with distance :)

Here I'm in complete agreement, though I think you're unnecessarily complicating the answer by introducing concepts from GR.

Trebuchet
2012-Mar-13, 01:03 AM
I once (7th grade?) made the mistake of correcting a teacher who said the beaver was the world's largest rodent. Got assigned to write a report and read it in class. Which I did, after which the teacher apologized. She really thought I was making the capybara up. Nope, I spent about half my time reading old National Geographics.

caveman1917
2012-Mar-13, 04:17 AM
Here I'm in complete agreement, though I think you're unnecessarily complicating the answer by introducing concepts from GR.

Perhaps, though i do think that GR, even while it may be mathematically more complex, on an intuitive level answers the question easier than newtonian gravity. In newtonian gravity you have to compare the force on the spaceship with the force on the astronaut and notice that they cancel relative to eachother, so you're still left with the impression that the astronaut can actually "feel" the force of gravity but he just doesn't notice it relative to his spaceship, and that reducing the force of gravity by increasing distance will make the astronaut "more absolutely weightless". Of course this isn't true even in newtonian physics, but it actually seems more difficult on an intuitive level than GR where you get the correct result from just realizing the equivalence of all geodesics no matter where they pass.

DoggerDan
2012-Mar-18, 04:41 PM
Weight itself requires definition. Several posters suggest that bodies in free fall are weightless, yet I doubt that most native speakers of English would accept that their weight changes when they, for example, jump off a chair. If weight is the force acting on a body due to gravity then objects in free fall are not weightless. If weight it the force something else (such as the ground) exerts on a body to keep it at a constant gravitational potential, then bodies in free fall are weightless.

That's because in English, the term "weight" is used interchangeably to mean both "mass" as well as "force of acceleration due to gravity." To avoid such ambiguity we never use the term "weight" in engineering and physics. We use SI base and derived units like "mass," "force," and "acceleration."

DoggerDan
2012-Mar-18, 04:44 PM
I once (7th grade?) made the mistake of correcting a teacher who said the beaver was the world's largest rodent. Got assigned to write a report and read it in class. Which I did, after which the teacher apologized. She really thought I was making the capybara up. Nope, I spent about half my time reading old National Geographics.

In fifth grade I was arguing with a teacher about something. Flustered, he said, "What does that have to do with the price of beans in China? Try writing a report about that!"

The next day I turned in my report. :)

profloater
2012-Mar-26, 03:56 PM
I often see articles about freefall jumpers and underwater divers experiencing weightlessness which is a different and not wholly inaccurate way af expressing weightlessness. There is a balance of forces as opposed to no forces and being on a geodesic is also a balance of forces. Indeed I believe astronauts train in water pools where they are neutrally buoyant. However I have to correct customers who say you experience zero gravity in a float tank. It's a long struggle to educate everybody.

Paul Beardsley
2012-Mar-26, 06:37 PM
Meanings of weightlessness... clearly it has several subjective meanings, such as the feeling you get when you're jumping on a trampoline and you reach peak height. You know perfectly well that your mass is (largely) unchanged, and you will fall back to Earth (hopefully that part of Earth occupied by the trampoline) but for a moment it's quite an ethereal feeling. The subjective sense can also apply to lying on your bed listening to Pink Floyd.

In the context of astronauts, it clearly means something along the lines of, you can stand inside your spaceship without exerting a steady force on anything.

As other posters have admirably demonstrated, this kind of weightlessness can be experienced whether one is close to the Earth or light years away from Earth. Similarly, one can be weightful whether one is close to the Earth or light years away from it.

The study guide - and possibly the exam itself, we don't actually know - is horribly wrong, and suggestive of a powerful force of antieducation.

Eclogite
2012-Mar-26, 09:01 PM
It is rather presmptuous of me as newbie (I'm a presumptuous chap), but it seems to me that everyone except perhaps NEOWatcher has missed the root cause, although a handful have skirted round it. The problem isn't the answer. The problem is the question. If a question is phrased so ambiguously that rational, intelligent, educated individuals can make different defensible assumptions about its meaning, then that is a poorly phrased question.

In short, there is no correct answer to that question because the conditions are insufficiently defined. Under those circumstances the only valid response would seem to be to specify conditions within ones answer that remove the ambiguity.

caveman1917
2012-Mar-26, 10:38 PM
Meanings of weightlessness... clearly it has several subjective meanings, such as the feeling you get when you're jumping on a trampoline and you reach peak height.

{...}

In the context of astronauts, it clearly means something along the lines of, you can stand inside your spaceship without exerting a steady force on anything.

It's the same thing (and i suspect the same feeling, in the sense that astronauts constantly feel like being at peak height jumping a trampoline). Strictly speaking you are in the same condition for the entire jump, not just at the peak height, the difference is probably due to feeling your motion with respect to the air, which on the upwards and downwards part of your jump still provides you with a decent sense of direction.

I do wholeheartedly agree on the comparison to lying on your bed listening to Pink Floyd, especially their earlier (pre-the wall) work :)

BigDon
2012-Apr-03, 05:42 AM
And as usual I have this story...

"There, Africa! Did I ever tell you about the time..."

"I'm sure, sir."

Well anyway back in the late seventies there were a lot of underground radical presses in San Francisco and Berkeley printing up stuff that today would be an unbelievably bad idea due to new laws and attitudes.

One book that was fairly famous at the time had a lot of really mean things to do in it which seemed to be on the up and up, (?) until you got to one of their recipes for making something that wasn't fudge in your kitchen and I spotted something that set big ol' arooga horns off in my head. At one point the very detailed instructions, which uber-emphasized following their instructions to the letter for safety reasons, had the "fudge maker" pouring a half a gallon of water into a full gallon of potent, pre-warmed, sulferic acid. :eek:

Since I wasn't sure I was reading this right I took it to a friend of mine who has a B.A. in blowing stuff up, after being introduced to the subject in the Marine Corp, 'Nam. He looked at the recipe, then he LOOKED at recipe and said the whole thing was a boobytrap. Like one of those social engineering "viruses" that comes out every now and then. The fudge maker, if he followed the directions as stated, would have had a very nasty collection of things on the counter along side the aforementioned acid/water combo that would also react energetically when combined.

It seems people who print up mean stuff are mean.

Call me a stodgy old censor, (though I was young at the time), but I had no problem hucking that work into the fireplace later.

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2012-Apr-03, 07:16 AM
It seems people who print up mean stuff are mean.

Pyotr Rachkovsky casts a long shadow.

BigDon
2012-Apr-04, 01:32 AM
Pyotr Rachkovsky casts a long shadow.

Of course I just had to wiki that name.

And it was exactly what I was thinking, but didn't have a word for it. I bequeath you 7 internets for the education.

Still I learned more useful stuff from Army advanced infantry training manuals my friend brought me anyway. Simple stuff that's a no-brainer only in retrospect. (If you stretch a cable across a road at night between two trees or poles to ambush vehicles, don't stretch it straight across the road. Angle the cable so the vehicle hits it and then gets guided into one of the supporting trees. Stuff like that.)