Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zachary_amaryllis]

Being within like 20 miles of clinching I-70 in colorado, but mom didn't want to go. We went to Grand Junction, ok, cool, new mileage for me, but... *rips hair out*.

Of course, then I'd have to continute to Cove Fort, thus clinching 70 in its entirety. But no. She wanted to go back to Glenwood to go thrift shopping.

Oh well. fun trip anyway.

[kurumi]

Related: family drive to Disneyland, long ago, and I'm looking forward to getting some area highway photos on the way back. The plan is to leave right after lunch, to get home at a decent hour.

Instead, the shoppers in the family spend *hours* of extra time shopping (i.e. get the perfect souvenir for everyone you know), so we're not even on the road until it's dark.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

That the NHC uses 1 minute winds instead of the 10 minute ones recommended by the WMO. This means I have to guesstimate those to get a more direct comparative with the rest of the world. Also, they don't have a "strong" tropical storm category (i.e. separate gale-force and storm-force tropical cyclones) like the rest of the world.

[Scott5114]

Also, they don't have a "strong" tropical storm category (i.e. separate gale-force and storm-force tropical cyclones) like the rest of the world.

This is probably because weather media in the United States tends to dispense with wind categorization in favor of quoting just raw wind speed numbers in miles per hour (or knots in aviation and a few other contexts). Thus we don't use things like the Beaufort scale or terms like "gale force" winds (although we do use the Fujita and Saffir-Simpson scales for tornadoes and hurricanes respectively, owing to the difficulties in getting accurate wind speed measures).

[US 89]

Also, they don't have a "strong" tropical storm category (i.e. separate gale-force and storm-force tropical cyclones) like the rest of the world.

This is probably because weather media in the United States tends to dispense with wind categorization in favor of quoting just raw wind speed numbers in miles per hour (or knots in aviation and a few other contexts). Thus we don't use things like the Beaufort scale or terms like "gale force" winds (although we do use the Fujita and Saffir-Simpson scales for tornadoes and hurricanes respectively, owing to the difficulties in getting accurate wind speed measures).

The EF-scale used for tornadoes is explicitly a damage scale. The Saffir-Simpson scale is actually a wind scale. It is rare to get land-based station measurements to confirm higher-end hurricane windspeeds, but we fly planes into hurricanes and set their intensities using the wind speeds that they measure. Whereas if a Doppler radar measures 300 mph winds in a tornado, it doesn't matter at all towards the rating unless the tornado happens to hit a perfectly-built significant enough building and destroy it in just the right way while those winds are occurring. Which isn't a great way to go about tornado surveying in my opinion, but whatever.

Also, another reason for these scales is that the speeds these scales are used to describe are so high we aren't really familiar with them. Most people are probably familiar with what a 10 mph wind feels like vs. what a 30 mph wind feels like. Nobody really knows the difference between a 110 mph and 130 mph wind in the same way.

[Scott5114]

Also, they don't have a "strong" tropical storm category (i.e. separate gale-force and storm-force tropical cyclones) like the rest of the world.

This is probably because weather media in the United States tends to dispense with wind categorization in favor of quoting just raw wind speed numbers in miles per hour (or knots in aviation and a few other contexts). Thus we don't use things like the Beaufort scale or terms like "gale force" winds (although we do use the Fujita and Saffir-Simpson scales for tornadoes and hurricanes respectively, owing to the difficulties in getting accurate wind speed measures).

The EF-scale used for tornadoes is explicitly a damage scale. The Saffir-Simpson scale is actually a wind scale. It is rare to get land-based station measurements to confirm higher-end hurricane windspeeds, but we fly planes into hurricanes and set their intensities using the wind speeds that they measure. Whereas if a Doppler radar measures 300 mph winds in a tornado, it doesn't matter at all towards the rating unless the tornado happens to hit a perfectly-built significant enough building and destroy it in just the right way while those winds are occurring. Which isn't a great way to go about tornado surveying in my opinion, but whatever.

Enhanced Fujita is the gold standard despite being a damage scale because of the difficulty of measuring the wind speed directly. Because tornadoes generally have such a narrow track, the odds that they'll hit a pre-placed anemometer are low. Also, since tornadoes only last for an hour or so at most, and their course is so unpredictable, it's practically impossible to send a team out to deploy an anemometer the same way a hurricane hunter aircraft can measure the wind speed in a hurricane.

As you mentioned, wind speeds can also be measured by Doppler, but I'm not entirely sure if those measurements are yet reliable enough to be used for the sorts of things EF ratings are used for. I'm of the impression that the widespread availability Doppler wind measurement is a fairly recent development.

[kphoger]

When I print stuff off at work, I walk over to the printer while it's doing its thing.  Once the last sheet has been spit out onto the tray, these little plastic fingers clamp down on the stack of papers—basically holding them captive so I can't grab them for a few seconds.

It's like the printer is on some power trip.  All right, wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... OK, now you can have them.

[Amaury]

People, specifically males, as it seems to be more common with them, who intentionally sag their pants or shorts—doesn't matter what kind (sweatpants or jeans). It's worse when over half of their underwear is showing, but even if their underwear is not showing because they're wearing a big shirt that's covering it, it still looks very tacky. It's even worse when they have a belt on just to keep their jeans from falling down all the way, when belts—besides sometimes being just for fashion, as some jeans will fit properly even without a belt—are meant to keep your jeans at your waist.

When it's unintentional, it can still be tacky, but most people in the unintentional category are more conscious about it and pull them up as needed. I understand that pants can slide down or underwear can ride up, even with a belt, but if it's the former, try to pull them up as needed. However, this is minor, so it's not like I'm ever going to say anything. If it's friends, I'll joke around and give them a hard time about it, but I don't get upset with them or anything.

Another minor annoyance, related to the above, is plumber's crack, but I'm near positive that one is always unintentional. I don't know what causes that one, as it's happened with me sometimes, but I'm pretty conscious about that and always pull them up when I feel them sliding down. Might just be some combinations of types or sizes of underwear and pants.

[Scott5114]

When I print stuff off at work, I walk over to the printer while it's doing its thing.  Once the last sheet has been spit out onto the tray, these little plastic fingers clamp down on the stack of papers—basically holding them captive so I can't grab them for a few seconds.

It's like the printer is on some power trip.  All right, wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... OK, now you can have them.

I wonder if this is because of some sort of chemical process needs to finish during that time, like perhaps the bonding of the toner to the paper.

People, specifically males, as it seems to be more common with them, who intentionally sag their pants or shorts—doesn't matter what kind (sweatpants or jeans). It's worse when over half of their underwear is showing, but even if their underwear is not showing because they're wearing a big shirt that's covering it, it still looks very tacky. It's even worse when they have a belt on just to keep their jeans from falling down all the way, when belts—besides sometimes being just for fashion, as some jeans will fit properly even without a belt—are meant to keep your jeans at your waist.

When it's unintentional, it can still be tacky, but most people in the unintentional category are more conscious about it and pull them up as needed. I understand that pants can slide down or underwear can ride up, even with a belt, but if it's the former, try to pull them up as needed. However, this is minor, so it's not like I'm ever going to say anything. If it's friends, I'll joke around and give them a hard time about it, but I don't get upset with them or anything.

I mean...people have been doing that for 20 years at this point. I remember people doing it in high school and I graduated in 2007. At some point you just have to accept that people will do things with their clothes you don't like and just get over it.

[Amaury]

I mean...people have been doing that for 20 years at this point. I remember people doing it in high school and I graduated in 2007. At some point you just have to accept that people will do things with their clothes you don't like and just get over it.

Oh, yeah. Definitely. Like I said, it's a minor thing and I don't get worked up over it. If I notice it, that's all it is. I notice it and move on.

[kphoger]

People, specifically males, as it seems to be more common with them, who intentionally sag their pants or shorts—doesn't matter what kind (sweatpants or jeans). It's worse when over half of their underwear is showing, but even if their underwear is not showing because they're wearing a big shirt that's covering it, it still looks very tacky. It's even worse when they have a belt on just to keep their jeans from falling down all the way, when belts—besides sometimes being just for fashion, as some jeans will fit properly even without a belt—are meant to keep your jeans at your waist.

When it's unintentional, it can still be tacky, but most people in the unintentional category are more conscious about it and pull them up as needed. I understand that pants can slide down or underwear can ride up, even with a belt, but if it's the former, try to pull them up as needed. However, this is minor, so it's not like I'm ever going to say anything. If it's friends, I'll joke around and give them a hard time about it, but I don't get upset with them or anything.

We have a neighbor one block up the street whom we've nicknamed "Mister Pants on the Ground".  I think he's a little bit "off in the head", or possibly on drugs sometimes, or possibly both.  We once saw him wearing a Halloween mask, spinning in circles in his driveway.  Anyway, he likes to strut down the middle of the street, sometimes walking his dog, to the smoke shop, and doing so apparently requires one hand to hold his pants up at all times.  Ridiculous.  Hilarious, but ridiculous.

The best was when I was on the bus and a saggy-britches fellow boarded.  He had to hunt for change in both of his pockets but, if he let go of his pants, they'd fall down.  It was like watching a comedy routine, except he wasn't even trying.

Another minor annoyance, related to the above, is plumber's crack, but I'm near positive that one is always unintentional. I don't know what causes that one, as it's happened with me sometimes, but I'm pretty conscious about that and always pull them up when I feel them sliding down. Might just be some combinations of types or sizes of underwear and pants.

Over the years, I've realized that some people's "anal cleft" is apparent farther up their back than others'.  This means that their pants might not actually be riding low, but you can still see the "crack".  I haven't totally made my peace with that but, every time I see it, I tell myself that that's just the way their body is made, so stop being bothered by it.

I mean...people have been doing _____ for _____ years at this point. ... At some point you just have to accept that people will do things ... you don't like and just get over it.

Then what would we talk about in this thread?

[thenetwork]

People, specifically males, as it seems to be more common with them, who intentionally sag their pants or shorts—doesn't matter what kind (sweatpants or jeans). It's worse when over half of their underwear is showing, but even if their underwear is not showing because they're wearing a big shirt that's covering it, it still looks very tacky. It's even worse when they have a belt on just to keep their jeans from falling down all the way, when belts—besides sometimes being just for fashion, as some jeans will fit properly even without a belt—are meant to keep your jeans at your waist.

When it's unintentional, it can still be tacky, but most people in the unintentional category are more conscious about it and pull them up as needed. I understand that pants can slide down or underwear can ride up, even with a belt, but if it's the former, try to pull them up as needed. However, this is minor, so it's not like I'm ever going to say anything. If it's friends, I'll joke around and give them a hard time about it, but I don't get upset with them or anything.

Another minor annoyance, related to the above, is plumber's crack, but I'm near positive that one is always unintentional. I don't know what causes that one, as it's happened with me sometimes, but I'm pretty conscious about that and always pull them up when I feel them sliding down. Might just be some combinations of types or sizes of underwear and pants.

1) re: the low hanging pants...It's been rap/ hip-hop thing for decades, unfortunately.   I heard a comedian say one time he went up to a group of them and asked them "which artist died now?"  They asked why.  He said, "because I see you're wearing your pants at half-mast".

2) re the showing of the PlumberstButt Crack:  I want to say part of that is because both men's and women's jeans don't rise as high as they used to.  That extra 1-2 inches make a big difference in whether you see the crack, Whale tail, etc,...or not.

[Scott5114]

Can someone explain to me why someone wearing their pants low bothers you or is "unfortunate"?

[kphoger]

Because your butt being visible for people to see is generally considered inappropriate.  Showing your underwear is just one step below that.  And, even if you can't actually see the butt/underwear, the sagging pants makes it obvious that you could if only the shirt were shorter.

[webny99]

I think of it as unfortunate for the person to have to keep making adjustments, unless they've got a means of keeping their pants in place that I hadn't considered. But it doesn't bother me that much unless it's visibly affecting their gait.

[DTComposer]

To me (and it's not annoying, just curious), it's not where they choose to let their pants hang, but the practicality of it. If you have to continually pull up your pants to keep them from hitting the ground, then it seems like a lot of wasted effort (and potential embarrassment) to follow a fashion trend.

A friend of mine who teaches high school drama would have her students move flats/scenery/etc. during class or rehearsals, and they would need both hands to carry it, and their pants would fall down mid-move. Not meant to embarrass, but to point out the idea that if your fashion gets in the way of your day-to-day activities or obligations, then perhaps the fashion isn't worth it.

[J N Winkler]

2) re the showing of the Plumber's Butt Crack:  I want to say part of that is because both men's and women's jeans don't rise as high as they used to.  That extra 1-2 inches make a big difference in whether you see the crack, Whale tail, etc,...or not.

Yes, jeans these days are almost universally cut to rest on the hip rather than the natural waist.  I also suspect stiff fabric and ungenerous cut through the crotch contribute to the problem.  This is actually one of the reasons I prefer khaki trousers.

[1995hoo]

Heh, the posts above about sagging jeans make me think of this comment I made earlier in this thread. It's still valid—my phone still suggests "Buttcrack" even though we haven't been to a Caps game since May. (Regarding sagging jeans generally, Virginia had the infamous "Droopy Drawers Bill" back in 2005 where a state legislator sought to impose a fine on kids who walked around with their underwear hanging out. The bill failed. It makes me wonder, if that bill passed, shouldn't there also be a law fining women who walk around with their bra straps exposed? I mean, is there really that big a difference in principle?)

Unrelated to the above (and hence the reason for the double post):

The woman who sits in front of us at Verizon Center always wears jeans that don’t fit properly and invariably exposes buttcrack at some point during a game when she stands up. It’s become a running joke among our season-ticket group. My wife and I know her name, but our season ticket partners apparently don’t and they’ve taken to calling her "Buttcrack" and viewing her as the team's lucky charm (e.g., "No Buttcrack tonight, we're sunk.").

This has become so pervasive that my phone has discovered it:

[kphoger]

Can someone explain to me why someone wearing their pants low bothers you or is "unfortunate"?

Because your butt being visible for people to see is generally considered inappropriate.  Showing your underwear is just one step below that.  And, even if you can't actually see the butt/underwear, the sagging pants makes it obvious that you could if only the shirt were shorter.

Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I believe there's more at play.

Clothing norms are obviously culturally dependent, which is to say they vary across time and geography.  There was once an anthropologist working among a tribe in Papua New Guinea (or somewhere in that general area) whose only typical clothing item was a cord around the waist for hanging tools on.  Aside from that cord, they went around otherwise nude.  One day, the anthropologist asked one of the men if anyone ever went without the cord around their waist.  With shocked disbelief on the man's face, he answered, And be naked!??  We can chuckle at that, but on some level we all understand that dress codes vary from culture to culture.  For this reason, then, it's unavoidably a bit foolish to try and conform such norms to the rigors of logic and reason:  at some point, we have to just admit that that's the way things are in our culture.

But clothing norms are also situationally dependent—even within the same culture.  We can think nothing of seeing a woman in a bikini at the beach or the pool, yet we'd be startled at seeing her dressed like that at the office copy machine or taking communion at mass.  I wouldn't let my sons wear gym shorts and an old T-shirt to a wedding, even though I have no problem sending them out to play in those clothes.  Go to a hot springs pool, and you can take all your clothes off without shocking anyone;  try heading downstairs to the hotel breakfast with no clothes on the next morning, however, and be prepared for them to kick you out in short order.

With that in mind, it is my expectation that people in normal everyday life will keep their pants on.  If my pants were to fall down to my knees as I was heading into my boss's office at work, then that would be embarrassing for both of us.  If you come over to my house for dinner, then I expect you to keep your pants from falling off.  Knowing what brand and style of underwear you have isn't a big deal in the locker room, but it's not something people should find out while waiting for their order at Burger King.

And, when someone lets their pants sag to the point that it's obviously noticeable, then it basically looks like they're halfway to ending up undressed—and that they don't really care—and, moreover, that they actually want that.  It looks like, any second now, they might end up "letting it all hang out", and that they're fine with that, to the point that they didn't even bother to put on a belt.

[JayhawkCO]

With that in mind, it is my expectation that people in normal everyday life will keep their pants on.  If my pants were to fall down to my knees as I was heading into my boss's office at work, then that would be embarrassing for both of us.  If you come over to my house for dinner, then I expect you to keep your pants from falling off.  Knowing what brand and style of underwear you have isn't a big deal in the locker room, but it's not something people should find out while waiting for their order at Burger King.

And, when someone lets their pants sag to the point that it's obviously noticeable, then it basically looks like they're halfway to ending up undressed—and that they don't really care—and, moreover, that they actually want that.  It looks like, any second now, they might end up "letting it all hang out", and that they're fine with that, to the point that they didn't even bother to put on a belt.

Not sure if everyone is aware of the original genesis of sagging is/was, but it basically stems from guys in prison not being allowed to have belts and so their pants would always fall down a bit. So when it became mainstream, it was during the rise of the gangsta rap era where showing (at the time) your boxer band made you look tougher as if you had been in prison. As with most things with urban culture during that age, it crossed over to the suburbs due to kids wanting to emulate the rappers and also with things like the Mark Walhberg Calvin Klein ads.

[kphoger]

It's nice to think of a board meeting where the CEO says "Well, we budgeted for 50% profit and thanks to increased efficiency, we got 55%, so let's lower the prices", but has that ever happened? American business culture is to say "hey cool, increased profit!" and congratulate yourself by raising your own salary.

And this is why I don't like self-checkout lanes at the store.  Take away people's jobs in the name of keeping prices low?  Yeah, I'm guessing not.

At least two of our local Dillon's (Kroger) stores now have a new kind of self-checkout.  The self-scan terminal is the same, but there's a full-length conveyor belt from there down to a sacking area.  This isn't very convenient for a single shopper, as you have to scan all your items, let them pile up a couple of yards away, and then go over there to sack them all up while the next shopper is anxiously waiting.  But, for two people shopping together, it's great.  One person scans, the other one sacks.

And now I'm hooked.  My desire to interact with a human employee in the checkout lane has been eclipsed by my desire to be in control of how my groceries get sacked.  I can now generally walk out of the store with one well-packed cardboard flat (like what they have produce in at Aldi) and two well-packed paper sacks.  I'm a happy camper.

[roadman65]

Scam artists on Facebook who claim to be someone you know and tell you the good new that you qualify for a new government program that awards you a half a million dollars because you fall into the "category."

Though I have seen through them before they ask me to give them personal info, it still annoys me a bit that some could be so low.

[elsmere241]

Not sure if everyone is aware of the original genesis of sagging is/was, but it basically stems from guys in prison not being allowed to have belts and so their pants would always fall down a bit. So when it became mainstream, it was during the rise of the gangsta rap era where showing (at the time) your boxer band made you look tougher as if you had been in prison. As with most things with urban culture during that age, it crossed over to the suburbs due to kids wanting to emulate the rappers and also with things like the Mark Walhberg Calvin Klein ads.

I knew it was something like that.  In the mid-1990s (I don't know if they still do) Warner Brothers had cartoons of Looney Tunes characters with sagging pants.

[kkt]

When I print stuff off at work, I walk over to the printer while it's doing its thing.  Once the last sheet has been spit out onto the tray, these little plastic fingers clamp down on the stack of papers—basically holding them captive so I can't grab them for a few seconds.

It's like the printer is on some power trip.  All right, wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... OK, now you can have them.

I wonder if this is because of some sort of chemical process needs to finish during that time, like perhaps the bonding of the toner to the paper.

People, specifically males, as it seems to be more common with them, who intentionally sag their pants or shorts—doesn't matter what kind (sweatpants or jeans). It's worse when over half of their underwear is showing, but even if their underwear is not showing because they're wearing a big shirt that's covering it, it still looks very tacky. It's even worse when they have a belt on just to keep their jeans from falling down all the way, when belts—besides sometimes being just for fashion, as some jeans will fit properly even without a belt—are meant to keep your jeans at your waist.

When it's unintentional, it can still be tacky, but most people in the unintentional category are more conscious about it and pull them up as needed. I understand that pants can slide down or underwear can ride up, even with a belt, but if it's the former, try to pull them up as needed. However, this is minor, so it's not like I'm ever going to say anything. If it's friends, I'll joke around and give them a hard time about it, but I don't get upset with them or anything.

I mean...people have been doing that for 20 years at this point. I remember people doing it in high school and I graduated in 2007. At some point you just have to accept that people will do things with their clothes you don't like and just get over it.

It goes back further than that.  It was worth a sight gag in the movie "Clueless" which came out in 1995.

[JayhawkCO]

When I print stuff off at work, I walk over to the printer while it's doing its thing.  Once the last sheet has been spit out onto the tray, these little plastic fingers clamp down on the stack of papers—basically holding them captive so I can't grab them for a few seconds.

It's like the printer is on some power trip.  All right, wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... OK, now you can have them.

I wonder if this is because of some sort of chemical process needs to finish during that time, like perhaps the bonding of the toner to the paper.

People, specifically males, as it seems to be more common with them, who intentionally sag their pants or shorts—doesn't matter what kind (sweatpants or jeans). It's worse when over half of their underwear is showing, but even if their underwear is not showing because they're wearing a big shirt that's covering it, it still looks very tacky. It's even worse when they have a belt on just to keep their jeans from falling down all the way, when belts—besides sometimes being just for fashion, as some jeans will fit properly even without a belt—are meant to keep your jeans at your waist.

When it's unintentional, it can still be tacky, but most people in the unintentional category are more conscious about it and pull them up as needed. I understand that pants can slide down or underwear can ride up, even with a belt, but if it's the former, try to pull them up as needed. However, this is minor, so it's not like I'm ever going to say anything. If it's friends, I'll joke around and give them a hard time about it, but I don't get upset with them or anything.

I mean...people have been doing that for 20 years at this point. I remember people doing it in high school and I graduated in 2007. At some point you just have to accept that people will do things with their clothes you don't like and just get over it.

It goes back further than that.  It was worth a sight gag in the movie "Clueless" which came out in 1995.

It started being popular right around 1992-93, right when I was in my peak "I need to do whatever to be cool" mode in 6th grade.