sherpa

It's easy. Wrap the cherry tomato in a small strip of prosciutto, get the basil on and hold it all together with a small toothpick, which also serves as the serving entity. Drizzle a little olive oil or balsamic, depending on taste, over the top and your done. I'll miss the cioppino, but the seafood selection just isn't available this year. Next year.

We were married in San Francisco, and our tradition for the year's since is a Cioppino recipe from that area that I've made for years. This year, for the first time, the shell fish isn't available in our area of Virginia, so I'm leaving the choice to others. I'm just providing a cherry tomato wrapped in prosciutto and a bay leaf appetizer. Tomato and basil from our greenhouse.

Yes. Hubbell pictures are black and white or greyscale, more accurately. The spectacular images published are after processing, which is not to say they are not accurate. The scope has numerous filters and after taking pictures with a number of them, and seeing how much light passes through in each wavelength range, they can get a sense of the true color and then apply that to complete the final image. Hubbell's initial problem was due to an error in testing equipment which ultimately led to the misplacing of the primary mirror, and thus, blurry images. Fortunately an ingenious fix was arrived at, resulting in the fabulous images we have enjoyed for years. Such a fix won't be possible at Webb's orbit location.

So many incredible things about this scope. It will take nearly six months to get fully deployed and have the science working on it. Orbital point is at Lagrange 2, which is about a million miles from earth and synchronized to earth's orbit around the sun, and protected by a massive heat shield. What gives it it's unique ability is that it senses IR signals instead of visual light, like Hubbell. So many things have to go right, as there is no way to fix it, other than what it can do internally. Super exciting to watch this process.

You don't "trigger" me. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and the suggestion is ridiculous on so many levels it simply has to be responded to. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how some "rapid response team" is going to build an airbase that can handle F-22's, F-15's, tankers and AWACS.

You are not well informed. Nobody, from SecDef down would ever issue a directive to put two squadrons in the Ukraine. The suggestion that you made that some rapid response team would set up an air base in this situation is the stuff of grammar schoolers reading comic books. It simply doesn't work that way in the real world.

The entire suggestion is preposterous, and nobody, certainly not any Air Force officer is going to set themself up as a "tripwire." Air combat involves much more than throwing a few squadrons in a foreign land.

Easy. I'm not going to expand a response to other options. Just going to stick with what you posted and I asked about. Deploying a "couple of fighter squadrons" would require an airfield to operate out of, which we don't have there, some kind of command and control capability, which would involve AWACS, tankers for air-air refueling, a huge ground force for support and maintenance. Just a crazy, impossible suggestion that the pilots would be wacky to undertake.

"Message Board Serious," is probably an indictment. The idea is preposterous, senseless, would never be considered and likely produce irreparable harm. I'm not sure if you are familiar with this kind of thing, but it takes a whole lot more than what you propose to ever be effective.

Is this a serious suggestion or a joke? Not meaning to be disrespectful, just wondering.

Ya. McClusky was a South Park High School guy. It was the Japanese destroyer, Arashi he followed. Nimitz said that McClusky's perseverance" "decided the fate of our carrier task force and our forces at Midway." I think there is a bronze statue of him in Buffalo. In recognition of his heroic actions, the "McClusky Award" is given annually to the most outstanding strike fighter squadron in the US Navy, and it is a very big deal to receive that.

The cracking the code thing is overrated. The US was only able to decipher a percentage of transmissions, and the Japanese did not include a number of details in what was deciphered. The US knew where and when. They did not have any idea of the position of Japanese "Kido Butai." With inferior equipment and inferior tactics, it was pure serendipity that South Buffalo native and CAG Wade McClusky found the Japanese carrier fleet, resulting in the sinking of four Japanese carriers in ten minutes, and changing the course of the Pacific war.

Disagree completely. The oil card has been played. Oil is plentiful and massive amounts can be easily brought online. The Russians haven't nearly the power that is ascribed to them. They simply don't understand that until they are hit over the head with their lack of perceived strength. It has happened many time before.

Check out Major Frederick Rutland, and how the British stashed him in 1941 when his espionage for the Japanese became apparent.

The US didn't. Far, far more likely that the British did know, but there is no compelling evidence that anybody really knew, though they should have. Embryonic intel performance, but ultimately, a Japanese suicide.

I have read them and "understood" them for many decades, including many format changes. To use your quote, and I am extremely informed on how to read it, it is from 2pm Buffalo time, until 7pm Buffalo time, ending a full hour and a half before game time. That is the 1900Z forecast you included.

The forecast is for a period of hours as depicted. Within that "period" are individual periods, often four hours, but it varies based on the expected changes within that overall period. Rapidly changing weather causes more "FM's." That's the "FM" meaning "from." That is why the forecast that you provided specifically states those limited periods, as I have quoted. Same thing every day, everywhere. It is ridiculous to assume that a single forecast would be valid for 24 hours. They aren't and they never have been. The 24 hours contains many individual time periods within, as you linked. Personal crap aside, I don't care.

Absolutely not true. TAFs are for relatively short periods. That's why, in you original post which I quoted contains the following: "FM 060200 FM 060600 FM 060900 FM 061200 FM 061600 FM 061900" The valid forecast periods are for a few hours each, and the last one you mentioned was for mid afternoon. It is not true that any specific aviation forecast would cover a 24 hour period. I'm not sure whether people here know what these are used for, but they have extremely significant impacts on flight planning and dispatching, especially in the long haul. international realm, as they determining fuel loads an alternates, and can ultimately determine allowable routes and passenger loads. Again, I hate to bring it up, but if someone else does, and I know the premise to be wrong, as in pointing out a 2pm forecast for an 8:30 game, I will. Respectfully.

Any structure always blocks wind, unless it's a tornado. That is not to say it won't be a factor. Winds coming over a structure will be deflected down to some degree, and when they get in a confined space will swirl. The structure doesn't have any "open end zones." It has a minor tunnel that is enclosed. The wind forecast for this evening's game are locked solid from the west. Not from the lake. The stadium is oriented northwest-southeast. The winds will be perpendicular to the structure, but will change a bit throughout the game as the low moves further east.

Simply aerodynamically false. Any structure effects wind. Being below grade means nothing. It is simply the shape of the building as it relates to the direction/velocity of the wind.

I hate to bring this up again, but it comes up again and again. The 061900 time is GMT. That is 2pm EST. All TAF times are GMT. The latest TAF valid at 07000, (7pm EST this evening) is: Winds from the W (260 degrees) at 23 MPH (20 knots; 10.3 m/s) gusting to 40 MPH (35 knots; 18.0 m/s). Not a great difference in velocity, but when reading TAF's, you must subtract five hours from the valid time during EST, or four hours during Daylight Savings Time.

I would be really disappointed if I thought the Bills players cared about the weekly national media that spits out NFL nonsense.

No worries. The Bills under Sean McDermott have a totally accurate 3d model of the stadium. Before the game, they will enter the exact winds into the wind tunnel with the model. There will be no surprises. Josh will be droppin' them in like a Steve Carlton slider.

I think all are "strange." The prevailing winds in the area are from the southwest. The stadium is oriented NW-SE, with the tunnel at the SE side, putting it crosswind to the prevailing wind, and minimizing the effect. The tunnel is ultimately enclosed, so not that big of an aerodynamic deal. I have no idea if it was placed with this orientation in order to minimize the effect of having one direction enjoy tailwind, while the other battles a headwind, but it sure looks that way. Either way, weather systems produce winds from different directions based on the location of the highs and lows, but it looks like the place was oriented with knowledge of these facts.

The 20mph forecast is for a basic open, windsock location. At field level, it should be less, unless they knock down the walls. Less velocity, but less directional consistency.