caesar novus

Well, this is a stretch from the topic, but hard to know where it belongs. Just hitting the news recently is a billion euro art stash find in Munich, although it was found somewhat earlier. Various news sources call it Nazi loot, but it may be a category buster... in a way it seems to have been looted from Nazi museums by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildebrand_Gurlitt who was hired by them to sell it ("degenerate art"). His son has been found in possession of the art, which his (part jewish) father had claimed was burned in the Dresden raid. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/05/243221372/nazi-art-trove-includes-previously-unknown-matisse-chagall-works

Tiberius took power 1999 years ago, and has a terrible reputation of depravity. But a restoral of a sculpture of him http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/rediscovering-tiberius/ has some rethinking whether he was unfairly maligned http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/has-history-got-roman-emperor-tiberius-all-wrong/ . For my part, I see in his face a tightness in the mouth that suggests a guarded shell attempting to look prim and respectable vs a clever and possibly ruthless core. His bone structure there is concave, which would lead mouthparts relaxing more outward unless tightened into a contrived pose. Why would a powerful person pose as nonthreatening... I guess he was afraid of Sejanus? But you can't read too much into Roman sculpture, which has been altered thru the ages. In this case the right arm and a few other spots are fake as you can see at bottom of http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/tiberius/ . That arm looks way too expressive, undignified, and casual anyway. I saw an exhibit in Rome pointing out modifications to many ancient Roman sculptures during the Renaissance, just for the reason of changing fashions. P.S. I read the memoirs by Axel Munthe who a century ago lived on Capri where Tiberius ruled from. He reported that local residents systematically destroyed artifacts of Tiberius for religious reasons as they dug them up to install foundations, etc. I guess some artifacts were quite lurid. Here is a picture from Axel's villa looking toward palace of T. on the distant prominentory (actually I hear there were multiple palaces around the island).

I went to a cool lecture by Dr. Nicholas Hudson on Roman feasting styles. By a clever statistical analysis of physical dishes in dining rooms of various dates, he comes up with 2 social (festive) dining styles, neither of which equates to the hollywood version or even the versions on their frescos. He says the popular conception depicted was the exception. In early Rome, they engaged in what I believe he called status dining. There were a mix of patron, clients, and folks of various ranks paying tribute to each other and firming up relationships with symbiotic deals. They used dishware very much like today where everyone had their own plateware (theirs a bit smaller than ours). This way you didn't have to share or compete with others with common plates. You all recline, with heads toward the center of a circle and feet outwards like spokes of a wheel. In late Rome, the upper class still did the above a bit (using silver rather than pottery dishes), but most folks got more egalitarian with shared bigger dishes. "Convivial dining" was more of a communal thing, possibly with a christian influence. This isn't as great as it might sound, since there was no longer much striving for excellence, but rather a leveled "chain of contamination". Seated people paired up to eat from main dishes, then different pairings shared smaller dishes. So A and B shared, C and D shared... but then B and C shared another dish, so you were in a chain of spit potentially linking all together. I asked him if Mary Beard was right in saying the snack shops labeled in Pompeii couldn't be so because their food serving pots were unglazed and thus unsanitary for repeated wet use. He agreed and said they may have been spice shops.

Here is a great author presentation video about ultra productive but rude personality types in history, where Steve Jobs is called a cookie cutter example http://c-spanvideo.org/program/Obsessi . They have OCPD (compulsive obsessive personality disorder) he says, which differs from OCD in how the latter belongs in a mental ward, but the former drive family and co-workers to a mental ward! "America

. Hanson's book didn't claim Sherman was better than Grant, just that Sherman fit his maverick category best. BTW, A new book from US Naval War College prof. claims Vicksburg was a waste, and that the despised McClellan towered above Grant and Lee in terms of good strategy: http://c-spanvideo.org/program/Strategyandt He agrees that McClellan was horrible at operational and tactical levels, but if he was simply kicked upstairs rather than fired, his multipronged strategy might have taken transportation hub Chattanooga and ended the war 18 months earlier. Grant and Lee had poor strategic awareness; only Bragg and Lincoln came close to McClellan. The way the author characterizes these generals seems in line with a new brain theory that distinguishes top vs bottom brain thinkers (they reject the left/right brain theory) http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304410204579139423079198270 . I like their "adaptor" category, which doesn't use either top or bottom brain effectively (fun-to-be-with slacker!). Anyway McClellan would appear to be the stimulator type, whose top brain makes ingenious plans, but bottom brain is oblivious to see them thru. I guess Grant and Lee would be more perceiver bottom brain types who are said mainly good at reading the minds of their opponents, although not without some top brain (superb operational but not strategic thinkers).

Oh, I guess these codes are only good for the courses in that particular catalog mailer. I will post one last code from what must be the 100th physical catalog they wastefully have mailed to me... AXVE which should give 80% off some courses, but maybe none of the above.

Hmm, the above version of quiet storm is longer and overproduced compared to the softer version on my tablet. I guess I want to substitute this ethereal raga, with the warning that you have to wait a long time for the payoff climax. Either put it on a hidden tab to listen in background, or listen to the end, then the beginning. There ought to be a tool to play raga music files backwards for those of us wanting instant gratification. Also I couldn't find a worthy music clip of this god of jazz piano, but found a very wise interview session (with a dufus interviewer).

I took those great courses, which by the way should be available 75% off plus $10 off your first $50 with a coupon code PW4W which they sent to me with expiration oct 24. You also might find a better or a free shipping coupon on the web... they sometimes go 85% or maybe 90% off a pretty high starting price. I bought some of their physical media used too. Well the classical archeology course made no great impression on me for some reason... I may have gotten numb from the many non roman lectures preceding the roman ones, and maybe should revisit. I have paused in the middle of the structures course because it has a sort of dull presentation style. They hit columns and lintels, and arches, and should hit domes from the romans if I persevere. Look at the lecture headings, listener comments, and sometimes even trailers on those web links. I have their "Experiencing Rome: A Visual Exploration of Antiquity's Greatest Empire" which shows a lot of 3d views of structures and such, but I wasn't impressed by much depth of content: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3430 I also have their "Pompeii: Daily Life in an Ancient Roman City", but haven't looked at it yet (see the trailer at http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3742 ). I heard an audio only version of "Greece and Rome: An Integrated History of the Ancient Mediterranean" which only touches on architecture, but is VERY wise and listenable: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3300 Back on the free Yale course I posted about, be aware they didn't compress the video or audio files so it adds up to something giant like 16 or 25 gig for the download versions where you can halfway see the slides. They point to a youtube version and there is another 3rd party streaming source I posted a year or so ago which may be compressed nice enough to see details.

http://oyc.yale.edu/history-art/hsar-252 which is mostly about the aesthetic elements of roman architecture... the physical science alone would be pretty simple. It annoyed me on it's emphasis on memorizing defunct terminology for every little decorative element, and also the way she would go off topic to revel in the election of current leftist politicians... but those are the ways of ivy league US universities these days. Also I believe there is a lengthy translated Roman tract available free on the web about how to build an aquaduct.

An easy stroll from Appia Antica is the Ardeatine Cave WW2 massacre site turned into a memorial... "one of the most touching places in Rome" says http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g187791-d240660-Reviews-Fosse_Ardeatine-Rome_Lazio.html . It was especially chilling to visit knowing that the man in charge, Erich Priebke, was still living practically walking distance away under house arrest. Well, today he died at age 100 http://news.yahoo.com/erich-priebke-ex-nazi-officer-never-repented-180705952.html . About half of that century wasn't spent locked up, but living well and openly in Argentina after he escaped from a British POW camp. You'd think this would be a dreary reminder of one of umpteen reprisals against civilians (335 in this case), but the story is amazing enough to inspire 2 movies. A lot of contradictory info exists on the web about it... was it really originally a Christian catacomb site? There are colorful web sites on it like http://www.zchor.org/italy/caves.htm or more careful narratives like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeatine_massacre . The triggering event was partisan killing of at least 28 SS soldiers on parade, and unsurprisingly a lot of civilian reprisals were ordered. The story of the scramble to find enough "worthy" victims (finally too many), and then getting soldiers drunk enough to bear the killing is almost surreal. It seems clear that many were reluctantly following orders, although Erich wasn't reluctant enough for the courts... sort of fatalistic. On my visit I misinterpreted the exhibits labelled in Italian to focus on the explosives part (visit the crater above the roof of the caves), and almost wanted to visit and punch Erich. Anyway if you are ever crazy enough to walk to or from the Appian way from Rome, it is best to go via this memorial which offers the only pedestrian friendly approach. Otherwise the Appian way necks down to having no sidewalks on the edge of Rome and cars will scrape you against the walls even on a Sunday.

The grandeur that was Rome : a survey of Roman culture and civilization (1912) Stobart, John Clarke Available free from http://archive.org/details/grandeurthatwasr00stobuoft or http://archive.org/search.php?query=grandeur%20that%20was%20rome (I like the epub version on the first link, but other suggestions welcome) I was drawn to this book not just because it's expired copyright allows free download, but because Robert Garland (perhaps the world's best lecturer on Rome and Greece) named it as his childhood inspiration for his career. It is of course dated in facts and style, but that age allowed the author to write with frank enthusiasm and gripping narrative that would have to be inhibited and tediously nuanced today. So it is an entertaining big-picture book (follow-on to his "Glory that was Greece") that can set the stage to more mundane but correct works of today. Read a few samples (past the lengthy intros). Hitler and the power of Aesthetics This book is the perfect way to explore the dramatic WW2 period minus most of the gore. It's simply amazing how much that dictator focused on micromanaging public display, ritual, and art in order to gain power and seek legacy. A very unusual and rewarding book about a bohemian artist wannabe playing warlord (or the reverse? echos of Nero anyway). The Hitler Book by Henrik Eberle, Giles MacDonogh, Matthias Uhl This is a terrible book of doubtful veracity and ethics, but with useful elements. As I understand, it's a private report to Stalin about Hitler that was virtually beaten out of reluctant prisoners of war who were once on household staff, etc of Hitler. It includes various interjections by western commentators about wrong facts, which makes you wonder about the other parts that can't be fact checked. Anyway it gives chilling details such as Hitler ordering various killings of civilians for minor things, such as that they had seen construction of his Ukrainian bunker. Usually this view of Hitler has been mainly inferred due to lack of records (leaving open the possibility of overzealous underlings), but here you see him badgering underlings to be more brutal and less sentimental

How demanding is it for hardware? I believe mine is just below the min requirements they publish, but i'm not concerned with speed... only showstoppers.

Worth seeing it on Turner Classic Movie channel although resolution isn't much better and they rarely repeat it. I hope that movie is released in higher def... it is amazing to see their clips of Roman sites from 60 years ago when things were a bit different. With the old vs new views of the same thing I feel I can triangulate to better see the essence of Roman things. The ancient architecture has a different look then with less built up areas and less ant-like mobs of tourists. Of course it is better now that the opera theater is gone from Caracalla's baths; you can see it made a mess of it in the helicopter clip. Such a movie made me wonder why there wasn't more followup with similar ones, or more exposure of those stars. You might enjoy another clip in the Pz Novanna (that somehow looks more like its Roman racetrack origin) where Lanza sings a charming duet with a child busker. A glance to the internet tells that that was a real street urchin that Mario insisted was written in (where is she now?). Anyway Mario Lanza WAS preparing for a followup of that film, but was killed by a Rome fat farm! He apparently was a binge eater/drinker who submitted to a radical local program where they gave almost coma inducing drugs to stop the eating. The female star also seemed like lost potential. Although in this movie she was somewhat subdued, you can see her sizzling in earlier Italian movies and poised to challenge the other international bombshells of the day. But soon after this movie she retired into a royal wedding, and her children perhaps are first in line if Italy's monarchy was revived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk6pc8ZouQ

There is a reason those diagrams have different orientations... the runway is at the top. See the click-here picture for description in words of how it is far more than an orientation issue. My point is overwhelmingly documented, and I have cited but the tip of the iceburg... you have shown no such documentation, but mainly rude bluster. Pilots are on the whole unreflective and overly satisfied with their own provincial modus operandi... they kind of need to be because the priority is for decisive quick actions even if they are suboptimal. To rise above the mass produced student herd, try a dozen no-flap, no-power landings on a short field. You will be embarrassed that your went on this anti-intellectual jihad for something that is a lifesaver. It would be a lesser evil if the pilot community accepted the maneuver of forward slip, but left it under a confusing ambiguous name of sideslip. That is, they employ it with NO crosswind and are looking directly down the runway thru their SIDE rather than front window due to massive rudder input. But I don't see evidence of that, just denial and ignorance abounds. And of course it is a larger issue of needless pilot assumptions that their engine or flaps will get them out of landing troubles. An informed and open minded sector of the pilot community knows and practices ways around those dependancies.

There is an annual free museum day in US around the last saturday of september sponsered by smithsonian. Here is a list of participating venues and the means of printing free tix (digital image tix only accepted where noted) http://www.smithsonianmag.com/museumday/venues/ It seems a shorter list than in the past, and why did their cabletv channel disappear on me (just when I decided not to drop it to save money). I guess these are harder times... used to be you could go to any number sites without tix iirc.

Where is the list of standard nomenclature? There are 3 kinds of slip... generic (= accidental), side , and forward. Sometimes all of them are just shortened to "slip", because in context you know which one. It's conceivable that a lot of pilot communities lump a forward slip under "sideslip", but I question whether they comprehend the crucial forward slip mode. Maybe a third of world pilots don't know forward slips, another third knows them under that name, and another third lump them in with side slips. But why impoverish terminology, when the point is to revive the use of forward slips? Some think they are obsolete due to the use of flaps or spoilers, but they have the advantage of being able to modulate instantly. Turn it on, cut it back, increase it... much faster than cranking a flap motor (assuming it works). There are some minor drawbacks such as wear on the rudder linkage, unreliable airspeed readings, or shuddering of the aircraft, but it's fine in an emergency mode. Here are diagrams that distinguish the very crucial difference between the forward vs other slips: click here ->

First of all, my point is only about airline and power pilots putting themselves at needless risk by the over trust of engines or flaps being available to correct during the last seconds of landing. Sailplane pilots and even second-day US student power pilots learn ways to harness the energy you already have in the form of altitude and speed, and how to modulate it by forward slip, etc. So you aren't in the position of needing to add extra (unreliable) energy, but more or less killing off inherent energy. This point has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CROSSWIND TECHNIQUES. Nothing to do with crabs or slips or sideslips! You can do all that stuff as recommended as a separate issue. Although diagrams in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_landing#Techniques from Boeing show that a literally crabbed landing is silly (= crash landing)... you want a de-crabbed one or side slip. If you just do a search on videos about forward slip, demo's come in all languages. It isn't a localized technique or term. A forward slip can be distinguished by the pilot looking forward thru the SIDE window. A side slip may involve similar cross controls, but is done with the pilot looking out the FRONT window to see the same oncoming ground rush. Here is a ground view of an extreme parachute-like forward slip. He comes down almost sideways, in spite of no crosswind. Here is the case of the Boeing 767 that used that technique in an emergency landing w/o flaps or power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider "Pearson decided to execute a forward slip to increase drag and lose altitude. This maneuver is commonly used with gliders and light aircraft to descend more quickly without increasing the already-too-fast forward speed." Here is video of a german sailplane demonstrating the usage of forward slip to prevent him from plowing into the hangers at end of airfield. I can't read the german caption, but I imagine it reads "thank god the Mosquito pilots didn't know how to do this, or there would have been even more overhead that we couldn't shoot down in the war. Their sorry manual just says if the flaps dont work, you only can come in too fast and pray". Here is an italian video showing forward slip, with the caption "Eurofly Firefox forward slip to land practice, multiple view, Obiettivo Volare Airlfield, Fontanellato (Pr) Italy. This maneuver is used to reduce the height during the approach without increasing the speed. Is very useful in case you realize to be too high on the approach, or in case of an emergency landing out from the runway It is different from the side slip which is used to keep the plane straight on the runway during an approach with crosswind." Note you have to replace the first x with h because this forum can't handle more than 2 videos per post. xttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKyFh3wX0Q0"] Here is a video showing forward slips being learned second day of US pilot training. xttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoPqkUqvWBM"] Here is a video where towards the very end a pilot shows a friend forward slips and how they were a lifesaver when his flaps didn't work (think about losing power as well). Nothing to do with crosswinds! xttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3-Lu0EKSmQ"] To bring it back to Asiana crash, I was trying to reverse the knee jerk dialogue about their plane coming in "too low". Oh, dear if they just would come in higher. But they intentionally played around by coming in too high. That meant they only needed engine power at the last second. Instead they could have come in normally lower, and sooner found and fixed the lack of power. Or to be super safe, come in even higher and not needed engine power at all... just forward slip to burn the energy off. All to do with energy control, not expecting power to be there at the last second like so many pilots

. Pilots unfamiliar with forward slip may HAVE to come in dangerously fast or high. Like the Mosquito instructions for flapless landings. Or like the French airline pilot gliding back to his island of departure... he was at least wise to not risk arriving short (like Asiana at sfo) but came down with enough speed/height to overpower any little downdraft or miscalculation. The priority was to make the runway, and then somehow deal with the screeching overspeed. Or for more informed pilots in the same situation, the forward slip can be used from a fast/high approach to safely soak up energy, then if you hit a downdraft or see need to avoid undershoot, then you pop out of forward slip early and have energy to extend glide as needed. . . Just giving you a functional term since you criticize the term forward slip. You are stuck on it implying "sideness". As I have repeatedly stated, and included videos and definition references... it is a dead ahead straight maneuver. Very much like the snowplow when skiing... one goes right (stick) and is exactly opposed by the other going left (rudder). Soaks up energy and allows more pinpoint landings when flaps/power not available. It needs to be more widely known and practiced, not just an obscure one time thing to pass a test. I was amazed the Canadian airline pilot used it, until they explained he was also a sailplane pilot. Power pilots are pretty sloppy due to thinking the throttle will always respond to correct their mistakes. Sailplaners know to come in high/fast to guarantee no undershoot. Then they can use flaps, spoilers, or if they don't work "forward slip" to avoid overshoot/overspeed.

The mosquito manual gave the exact speeds to use landing flapless, and although it is screamingly obvious that it ought to be faster... I didn't bother comparing the actual numbers. Thus I didn't use false certainty in spite of 99.99% chance. It is a case of me using precise language, and my life experience of knowing there are exceptions. The point the reader should draw is... Holy moley, how many mosquito planes and crew suffered damage due to not knowing parachutal mode. How many airliners too. You seem to be reading forward SIDEslip vs forward slip. The former would be ridiculous, whereas a slip could logically be in any direction 360 degrees. It can't be confused with a skid because that has an upward component vs slips have downward. It is revealing that this proven miraculous procedure is so unknown, unused, and that you attack the message instead of appreciate its usefulness.

I can agree with most of your previous post, except for the need of the world to know and love forward slips. It would do better with a new name, but an accurate one would sound nerdy... it is sort of a backwards slip, or more exactly a less-forward slip... how about parachutal mode! Supposedly the ancient Greeks had 10+ words for love, which modern scholars reduced to 6 actual seperate concepts. But let's be sure the British aviation scholars haven't reduced their terminology down to a dangerous 5, such as would share the same term for sibling love as jealous, possessive love! We could almost dispose of the whole nerdy world of slips other than forward ones. I hate the monitoring of slip vs skid during flying... let's say all new planes must have a switch to handle this by computer. I also would like to ignore the nerdy crosswind landing tricks... yeah, a crab is nothing special; it's just the normal way you always fly up high or anywhere pointing a bit into the wind to avoid missing your destination. Intentional sideslip for crosswind: let's say new planes can't be certified if they actually need them. You just fly down normally (crabbed), then kick the rudder pedals to halfway straighten on landing. Forward slips: I have a ww2 british Mosquito manual and it says if you have to land without flaps you will descend with very flat angle. I believe much faster as well. This is a recipe for disaster because there will be so little room for error in under or overshooting the runway, especially without power. A (less) forward slip is the supreme answer. It's one of the first things a sailplane student learns. I can't vouch whether all US power pilots learn it before solo, because I went thru that at age 15 where my memory cells hadn't gelled yet. Maybe forward slips are known and used in UK and elsewhere under the sideslip name, but I doubt it. If they merrily can come in crooked in an emergency, bless them, but I hope they max out that rudder (against weathercock) to a forward slip because anything more timid like a conventional sideslip will speed them up and be inefficient. There are differences with various dihedral, swept wing, etc but that can usually be worked around. The slip side swept wing will resist with increased lift, but in an emergency you can force it. Note dc10's and the air canada (767, 777?) do it. Let's call it parachutal mode rather than forward slip. Just to be complete, someone might figure a comparable emergency maneuver involving a skid (to outside of turn)... sort of an anti-parachutal mode. You might approach runways long and high in a fast skidding turn, then (if needed) shorten/modulate the overshoot by snuffing the skid. Rudder would be used in opposite way as forward slip. I'm very unsure this would work, but I actually like curved approaches rather than rectilinear, invented I believe by UK carrier radial pilots who had poor forward visibility. I read that modern US pilots with poor forward visability (in a non-crosswind) may use the forward slip instead, to approach straight but point crooked!

It IS claimed in http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/464013-forward-side-slip.html that forward as applied to slip is mostly American, or limited to one sector of UK pilot types or other Europeans. This is appalling because the forward slip is a stunningly unique and useful technique. That's why it was such a miracle that a Canadian airline pilot used it right. And understandable why the French pilot I mentioned failed to take advantage. The concept is super simple. Sideslips are your plane sliding to the side relative to the air. You partially check the slide by opposing it with your rudder, modulated to stay on track with a runway when the air you are in makes a crosswind. The totally revolutionary concept, which surely needs a precise name... is when you mash that rudder hard to essentially check all slippage to the side... It's the ANTIsideSLIP or the forward slip because it only affects your forward glide slope. You can go steeper down and land without over speeding... Much safer without power because you can arrive high so as to prevent undershoot a la Asiana, then create a bunch of straight drag to avoid overshoot. Just because the controlling is similar, and maybe you combine it with crosswind handling makes people casually think they are no different, or defined by your intention. But an absolutely straight relative to air (rather the ground) forward slip is a lifesaver that needs a name for the different concept, because it isn't a logical extension of what calls for a sideslip.

Holy cow, I see in http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/flight-schools-training/38263-side-slip-forward-slip-4.html that the dc10 airliner series recommended the forward slip as their STANDARD worldwide crosswind landing technique... That was brought up by air force kc10 pilot who has the manufacturer manual. Boeing recommends the more conventional crab because any kind of slip can bonk stuff they hang under the wing into the ground. DC trijets had different geometry forgiving more bank, but very strange they didn't use sideslip. Strange because if you do forward slip with crosswind, you yaw INTO the wind like a crab. With sideslip you yaw AWAY from the wind. Contrasting and putting them together is shown in this video, although I would rather see forward slip reserved as a simple emergency maneuver. Let the airline pilots bonk stuff in emergency, and they they can approach higher and not risk shortfalls like Asiana.

I am watching Sophia Lorens - boy on a dolphin - which has time capsule views of Greek ruins, some of which must have been from roman occupation times. The differences a half a century made is sort of an uncluttered look... Like manicured by a hundred sweepers and rakers, surely not just for the movie? And very uncrowded, but it probably was off limits during filming. I think things were in better shape in the movie (Athens, epvidaurus, some islands) but less excavated than now. Next may try Sophia in north African ruins in an awful john Wayne movie. Well, she takes herself too seriously as well.