It Is A Polish Sub, After All

Why don’t the windows open on Submarines?  This is a problem

What is this?  A rare moment of political punditry from Jeremy?  This will probably start riots, you know. 

Oh, yeah.  If all the people who read my blag, actually take it seriously, and are easily inspired to revolt decide to take up arms, I'm sure they could totally lay siege to a Starbucks or something.

"Heck No!  We Want Joe!"

 So anyway, today's Sametime Status comes to you courtesy of one of the political candidates you may be hearing about on the news lately.  In an off-the-cuff quote taken slightly out of context and without the benefit of sarcasm, he came off as knowing very little about the way the world works.  He may have lamented the lack of ability to roll down the windows on commercial aircraft in the event of fire.  This, of course, leaves out much fundamental understanding of physics and people.  There's the fact that if you do open the window of an airplane at high altitude, the air pressure difference will be so great that a huge blast of wind will blow just about everything out of the plane.  Nowhere is this more memorable than in Goldfinger, where James Bond helps to teach us physics.  There's also the fact that even at lower life-sustaining altitudes, the ability to open airplane windows will be met with an unstoppable desire to open airplane windows, particularly by small children.  This will lead to stuff being thrown out of the plane and a remarkably inconsiderate wind blowing on other passengers.  I'm assuming that the passage of wind through the fuselage of an airplane will also disturb the aerodynamics of the vehicle as a whole, but I'm not sure how much of an effect that would have on the flight stability.  (The Goldfinger clip above seems to suggest a substantial one, and you know everything in Bond movies is 100% plausible.)  All of this information is available by a fairly basic understanding of science.  "Yeah Science!"  (Incidentally, I've watched that clip more times than I'd really care to admit.)  

So, to my main point.  Does a rudimentary understanding of physics really define a candidate's viability in an election?  I say yes.  We should expect our elected leaders to have a basic grasp of most subjects and to possess the knowledge that they're not experts on every topic, so that they are able to surround themselves with the appropriate people who are experts.  That way, they can at least hide their basic ignorances and be able to make informed decisions.

So to my side point.  Does a rudimentary understanding of physics really define a voter's choice for them?  I say no.  In the same way I expect elected officials to make informed decisions, I expect voters to make informed decisions and not to vote based on one sound bite, no matter how wrong it may be.  That said...I don't believe for one second that this is the way the world works.  Physics is a whole lot easier.