Oh and don't forget this little beauty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

A flying tank!! And they actually got it to work, by removing most of the tank's armor and ammo.

The ground-effect vehicle and the ice breaker don't really seem all that insane. The Soviets had far more insane projects...

For instance, their version of our space shuttle which was a close duplicate in every way except it lacked any sort of life-support systems whatsoever. They took it off and landed it on remote control anyway to show it off, before giving up on the whole concept. (Turns out they might have been right in the long run, considering how much trouble our shuttles have and how reliable Russian Soyuz capsules are!)

BTW, the US space shuttle can be piloted on remote control also. I don't think NASA's ever used this capability.

>> Then on April 1, Pulitzer announced that the ship containing the crated parts of the statue would leave France aboard the French warship Isere on May 8th.

The ship carrying the crates was ON a another ship?

Does the actual book have all these typos and errors?

I like when people post "how feasible is X" without spending the few minutes it would take to see if it already exists.

I actually came here to post about the Seattle Public Library, but I see I was beaten to the punch.

"How feasible is this: a website that has posted stories and you can write comments on them!"

I have a love/hate relationship with YouTube. While it's great to see all this content, it's terrible to see how poor most people are as camera-men. For instance, if you're going to stand in the same place for two minutes, BRING A TRIPOD!

I've seen longer trains, too. In fact, by definition, I don't think any train with only three engines pulling it can be the longest... a truly long train runs at least 5-6. Here in Washington, we have trains of containers, cars, lumber and the occasional 737 fuselage that run on 6 engines.

I think this one just looks longer because it has hundreds of the same type of car. I did enjoy it's crazy-ass caboose. (It looks like a mobile home on a flat-bed.)

Maybe I'm cynical, but I'd wager it's already an advertisement for TI-84 calculators, considering how much it's featured. In any case, I doubt it's just two guys with free time and a camera working on it, there must be money in it somewhere.

1) The last two links to more photos are busted.

2) Special effects in photography have existed as long as photography has. The most common being the double-exposure. That said, it doesn't look like Frees made use of that technique... but it's misleading to say that special photographic effects didn't exist.

It's cute, but this isn't what Flash navigation is supposed to be like.

There's no fallback. If you turn off plug-ins, then visit the site, you get nothing but a white window... not even an error saying it requires Flash, much less an alternate non-Flash version of the site.

There's no keyboard accessibility at all, so if you prefer a keyboard over a mouse (or if you're disabled and have no choice), you're SOL. Flash supports all kinds of accessibility options and keyboard navigation features, but this site doesn't use any of them.

The load time is terrible. Flash can load 'on the fly' as it's running movies, but this site doesn't use that feature... instead you have to sit there waiting for it for a full minute before you can do anything.

The UI is complex enough that they had to explain it in a few places. "Click on the skulls." In a good site, it should be obvious where to click without any hinting. (Not to say that all sites should look boring, just that it should be obvious which objects on the screen can be interacted with and which can't.)

There's no reason this website couldn't be equally as cute and add in those features I mentioned.

http://yourmario.com