NORKS give US student Otto Warmbier 15 years at hard labor

It's tough, I feel for the kid.  But he is terminally stupid to travel to North Korea in the first place, and even stupider doing ANYTHING not 100% legit while up there.  Think of it as evolution in action.

Middle of the Market (MOM) airliner

Boeing is talking about doing a new airliner to be a MOM airliner.  Airbus is competing furiously, and Boeing wants a magic product to take market share away from Airbus.  Unfortunately, just what the MOM airliner might be is vague, they don't talk about how many passengers it would carry, or the range it could fly.  And some people feel there is no such MOM design.
   Obviously Boeing is still feeling good about their new 787, which although smaller than the Airbus A380, is selling better.  When they started the 787 they knew that Airbus was doing something much bigger, but Boeing figured that the 787 was about the right size and would sell better, and they were right. 
   The other thing that clouds the issue is that Boeing makes some many different sizes of airliners already that you would think one of them would be the MOM airliner.  They have the smallish single aisle 737 which is still selling every one that comes off the production line.  They have the 757 and 767 models, larger than the 737 and maybe to be dropped.  They have the brand new sizable 787,  the older but large 777, and finally the big old 747.  They are still making a few 747's but it is clearly on the way out.  Given this wealth of Boeing airliner types, it is hard to see a market segment for which they don't have a product. 
   For future growth, Boeing has the 737MAX project to put new and more efficient engines on the 737.  This project is going head to head with a similar project at Airbus putting the new Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engine onto the tried and true A320 airliner.  Boeing has the 777-X project to create an updated version of the big 777 twinjet.  They have the USAF tanker project inhouse which something like 200 aircraft. 
   There has got to be some pressure inside Boeing to do another clean sheet design, using carbon fiber structure, and the latest of everything to create a follow on to the 737.  But the last clean sheet design, the 787, encountered delays, supply chain hangups, cost over runs, battery fires, and it's gonna take years and years of production to recover the money sunk into it.  The 787 has made it thru the development pitfalls and is now in production and making money.  But it was so late that Airbus was able to get the directly competitive A350 to market only a year after the 787.  Anyhow, there must be a lot of people at Boeing who have sworn "Never again" to the concept of advanced clean sheet designs. 
  

So what is The Donald guilty of? Really?

When you set up a political event, you gotta expect some unruly troublemakers to show up and cause trouble.  That's what cops are for.  As part of setting up the event, you get with local law enforcement, and  ask 'em to show up, in uniform, and keep order.  And if  trouble does break out, you blame the cops for not doing their duty.
   So The Donald had some sort of trouble, type and size unspecified, somewhere around Chicago, and everyone is blaming The Donald for it.  I don't get it.  I don't like The Donald much, and hope something happens to keep him from becoming the Republican nominee, but lets hang him for something that he done, not something that ain't his fault.
   Troublemaker's showing up at an event ain't his fault.  If trouble breaks out, it's the cops fault for not stopping it.  
 

Battery powered airliners.

NASA is funding research into them.  The idea is to carry batteries and an electric motor to drive (or assist driving) the fan section of a turbofan engine to produce thrust.  The greenies love the idea because it sounds so green, which is why NASA is spending money on the paper studies.  I wouldn't care to ride on one. 
   The artist's conception sketches show a fairly ordinary looking airliner with two big jet engines slung under the wings. 
    The article does admit that the idea doesn't really work until the batteries get about five times better than they are today.  Current lithium batteries store 150-200 watt hours per kilogram.  Everyone admits that the idea needs  batteries that can do 1000 watt hours per kilogram, five times better than today.  That is gonna take a while. It took 50 years to go from NiCad batteries to lithium for a maybe three times improvement.  At that rate of  progress it will take another fifty years to get to 1000 watt hours per Kg.
  Same issue of Aviation Week carries an article explaining that the International Civil Aviation Organization banning the shipment of lithium batteries on passenger airliners because of the fire hazard. 
   Your tax money at work.

Paul of Dune by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson

This turned up in hardback, good dust cover, in a second hand shop for a couple of bucks, so I bought it.  And read it.  It is 15th sequel to Frank Herbert's fantastically good 1965 novel Dune.  The sequels have been lesser works, pot boilers some would call them.  This one is no exception.  All though 512 pages long, it isn't really a novel in my view.  It's a bunch of  events, each event having little to tie it to it's sisters.  The book does have a protagonist, or perhaps better explained as a view point character, namely Paul Atriedes (Muad'Dib).  But Paul never does much, he is present in most of the events, but as a passive observer.  Even in the final event, an attempt on his life,  Paul does not even sentence the assassin to death.  This is a far cry from Dune, where Paul escapes Harkonnen assassins, rallies the Fremen. overthrows the Galactic Emperor, and slays a couple of enemies hand to hand in formal duels with knives. 
   In a real novel, the protagonist is faced with some kind of challenge.  He will make several attempts to overcome his challenge, in the last attempt, the climax of the novel, the protagonist will do or die, either triumph over his challenge or die from it.  That doesn't happen here.  There is no challenge to Paul Muad'Dib, he encounters a flock of bitter enemies, but nothing especial, nothing worthy of the attention of the new Galactic Emperor. 
   In short, after slogging thru 512 pages, bupkis. 

The Future of Computing

Title of cover story in the Economist.  They are quoting some Silicon Valley pundits on the end of Moore's Law.  Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, stated that the number of transistors in integrated circuits doubled every year, later revisions said every 2 years.  The observation was based on steady improvements in silicon lithography, which yielded smaller transistors, and hence more salable chips per silicon wafer.  Back when I started in the business, chips were made with 100 micron design rules.  Now we are down to 19 microns.  Sooner or later we will get to a size that cannot be shrunk anymore.  Silicon Valley pundits have been talking about this for twenty years that I can remember, and probably longer.
  The Economist been listening to the doomsayers, and ran a cover story and a special technology section worrying about the end of Moore's law.  They make it sound like computers will stop getting smarter. 
  Not to worry, the microprocessors are plenty smart enough, and if one chip won't do the job, buy five or ten of 'em, they only cost $10 or so, and get on with it. 
   The real effect of the end of Moore's law is that chips will stop getting cheaper every year.  Back when, Analog Devices introduced their nice new ADSP2181 chip.  The first year, they lost money on every chip they sold.  But after the first die shrink reduced the size of the part, and hence it's cost, it became profitable, and after three or four more die shrinks it became really cheap and profitable. 
   And since chips or now so cheap, I think the world will keep on rotating if they stop getting even cheaper. 

Trump comes out against H1B visas

First good idea I have heard out of The Donald.  H1B visa's are a deal where companies find skilled high tech workers overseas and sponsor them for temporary (a couple of years) entry to the US on the condition that they remain employed.  Should there be a falling out between the H1B employee and his employer, employee must find a new sponsor ASAP lest he get deported. 
   Companies like this, 'cause overseas employees will work cheaper than native Americans.  Take an engineer from say India.  A salary that an American engineer would find insulting, looks like more money than he has ever seen in his life. 
  And after a few years we tell this guy his H1B has expired and he needs to return home.
  This seems kinda dumb, and hard on the employee.  I knew a bunch of these guys over the years working in high tech.  Most of 'em are well educated, smart, hard working, decent people who would make excellent US citizens.  And, we need more young smart hardworking people (makers) to keep the US economy running, and produce the stuff that  50% of the population (the takers) is drawing thru our generous welfare programs. 
   We ought to run immigration to build the US with good decent citizens.  Every year we ought to have one big entrance exam.  We admit the best people to the country and tell the others to re apply next year.  Best people are the engineers, the scientists, the doctors, the young, the married, the educated and the intelligent.  Admit the best and offer them permanent citizenship. 

British Industry is against Brexit.

According to Aviation Week, British aerospace and defense companies  are speaking out against Brexit.  Airbus, airlines RyanAir and Easy Jet, and the company operating Heathrow airport  have all decried Brexit.  A report compiled by accountants KPMG suggested that three quarters of British aerospace and defense companies would vote to remain in the EU.
  Too bad companies don't get to vote.
  Good to hear that a few Brits have their heads screwed on nose to the front.

Open and Closed Primaries

States like NH hold open primaries, anyone can vote in either party's primary.  Other states like Massachusetts hold closed primaries, you have to be a registered party member to vote in the party primary. 
   Arguments for closed primaries are thus.  An American political party is more than just a bunch of voters.  The party stands for things and politicians who campaign under the party banner are expected to support their party on all levels.  Elected politicians are expected to vote the way the party leadership calls for, even if they themselves are against the party position.  In which case, it makes sense for the selection of nominees be limited to party members, in order to insure that the nominee thinks the way the party rank and file do.  Allowing independents and opposition party people to vote in party primaries dilutes the party members vote and allows the election of wishywashy or even hostile thinking nominees.
   The strongest argument for open primaries occurs in one party states.  In a solid red or solid blue state, winning the primary is equivalent to winning the general election.  In solid blue Massachusetts, winning the democratic primary means you will take office a few months later.  So members of the opposition party cry out for votes in the only election that really matters, the dominant party primary. 

Newsie's day dream, a "brokered convention"

The TV newsies keep talking about one.  They would just die to cover a "brokered convention".   The good old fashioned smoke filled room where party bosses cut a deal to select the nominee.  Dream on newsies. 
   In real life, the voters expect the party nominee to be chosen in primary elections.  If this doesn't happen, the voters will think something illegal, or immoral, or merely fattening, has happened behind closed doors.  They will refuse to support for any nominee selected by anything except a majority of the primary elections.   If necessary they will vote for a third party candidate who has some legitimacy.  Which will hand the general election to Hilliary. 
   Does the establishment or the voters understand this?   Given the horrible state of American schools, they may not. 

NH legislature off on wild goose chases

Let's see.  First we have the commuter rail project.  Costs $300 million to set up, plus $12 million a year running costs,  Only serves Nashua.  They want all the taxpayers in NH to pay for it.  Nice work if you can get it Nashua.
   Then somebody wanted to pass a new state law on indecent exposure.  We have been doing just fine with existing law going back to the colonial period.  Why do w need to change anything.  Far as I am concerned, if guys or girls want to walk around stark naked, fine by me.  I will enjoy the view.  I don't see any need for a law. 
   Then someone else wanted to pass a new law about bestiality.  I know the Old Testament is again it, but I hadn't heard of any cases in NH in the last fifty years.  Again, we have law on the books, going back to colonial times, that has been perfectly adequate.  
   Why is our gallant legislature wasting time with this sort of stuff?

Kelley Ayotte event in northern NH

Kelly Ayotte is our incumbent US Senator, running for re-election. She traveled up to northern NH to give a town hall event today.  It was held in the classic NH location, a VFW hall, this one in Haverill.  Turnout was good, parking lot was full, so was the VFW hall.  It was a close knit affair, Kelly knew half the people present and greeted them all. 

Learning to trash The Donald

Just watched Mitt Romney laying into The Donald on TV.  Wow. Zap.  Mitt came on just as strong as Marco Rubio, maybe stronger. 

Learning to love The Donald

The Donald is gonna win the Republican nomination, unless something really weird happens, like an assassination, or all the other Republicans consolidate behind either Cruz or Rubio.  Or  lightening strikes the convention.  Not likely. 
   I have some problems with The Donald as president, but I have more problems with Hilliary.  So I'll vote for The Donald, and work to get him elected.  I sincerely hope that The Donald can beat Hilliary in November, but I have my doubts.  Hilliary's negatives are very high, but The Donald's are higher. 

Everyone whines about the US deficit

But nobody running for president talks about how to reduce it.  It's very simple, Uncle spends more than he takes in with taxes.  So Uncle borrows whatever to make up the difference.  So far, Uncle has borrowed a total of one year's output of the entire US GNP, call it $17 trillion. 
  The only way to reduce the deficit is to hike taxes (highly unpopular with everyone) or cut spending (highly unpopular with those on the federal teat).  Nobody wants to talk about either alternative except The Bern, who wants some good old fashioned soak-the-rich taxes.  Trouble with soak-the-rich taxes, is we will all be rich in a few years from inflation.  So soak-the-rich today means soak everybody tomorrow.
   Since the people on the federal teat are less than everybody, it's more politically possible to cut spending than to hike taxes.  Although it still ain't easy.
   If we are gonna cut spending, it makes sense to start with the biggest money suckers, namely Medicare, Social Security, and perhaps Medicaid.  The US spends 19% of GNP on health care, twice as much as any other country in the world.  Some investigation ought to reveal how decent first world countries like Canada, Britain, France, Germany and a bunch of others get by spending half what we do.  Naturally the doctors, the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the hospitals will scream bloody murder when Uncle does a little cost cutting, but let 'em.  They don't have that many votes. 
   Social Security (the third rail of American politics, touch it and die) is harder.  Cutting retiree's social security benefits would create a nationwide firestorm against those stupid enough to try it.  But Social Security pays out a lot in "Survivors Benefits" and "Disability Benefits" which could be tightened up somewhat.  Even a small cut in a big program would save serious money.
  And nobody running for president is talking about any of this.  Wimps. 

We got so much crude oil they are stashing it in railcars

US oil production is up, sales are down and the oil is piling up every where.  The surplus is so bad that owners are renting empty rail tank cars to just hold the stuff until prices rise or customers come forward.  That's a long way from "peak oil".  The Wall St Journal says US oil inventories have not been this high since the 1930's. 

Uncle wants to revive Mortgage Backed Securities.

Mortgage backed securities used to be a $ trillion dollar a year market, up until 2007 that is.  Since 2007 nobody will touch them.  The Journal shows a bar graph of sales over the years and zero sales in any year after 2007. 
   Many people think that mortgage backed securities caused Great Depression 2.0  In the go-go real estate bubble back in the aughts, banks and mortgage lenders needed more money to do mortgages with.  Someone had the bright idea of creating a security, essentially a company IOU, which was "backed" by mortgages held by the bank. These IOU's were sold to gullible investors, by promises of high yield,  and the proceeds used to write more mortgages.  Trouble was, the "backing" didn't mean anything, the IOU holders did not get the right to repossess the properties when the borrowers stopped paying.  And when the borrowers stopped paying, the investors stopped getting paid too.  Investors wised up in 2007 and no more mortgage backed securities have been sold. 
   So banks can do mortgages using their own money, of which they never have enough, or by getting FHA or Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac or VA to put up the money.  But, these government agencies, still suffering huge losses from 2007, all have pretty stiff rules about what kind of mortgage they will accept.  Unless the borrower has a real clean credit record, no deal, no mortgage.
  Now we have Monique Rollins,  deputy assistant secretary in Obama's Treasury Dept saying "We do believe that a reformed asset class could responsibly broaden access for qualified buyers who are not being served today."   Translation: Let's do mortgage backed securities to give the banks money to do any kind of mortgage they like."   Which is what caused Great Depression 2.0.  Not good.  But the Obama administration is in favor.
  Of course, Monique has not explained what she would do to get investors to touch the new model mortgage backed securities.  
  I wonder what a Trump administration would do?
  

Brexit

Short for British Exit From EU. The Brits have set 23 June as the date for a nationwide referendum on pulling out of the EU.  British bookies are offering 2:1 odds that Brexit will happen. The Conservative party prime minister will campaign to keep Britain in.  He cannot get all the senior conservatives to support him. Heavy duty Conservatives like the mayor of London and the justice minister are in favor of getting out and have said so publicly.
   Prime Minister Cameron went to Brussels, dickered, and came back with some concessions from the EU. Britain will be able to refuse to pay welfare to new immigrants until they have been in Britain for four years.  There will be some poorly understood restrictions on immigration to Britain.  It probably ain't enough.  The Brits fear being overrun by foreigners and resent EU regulations on just about everything.
   Problem for Her Majesty's Government.  About one third of British exports go to the EU.  Right now they go duty free since Britain is currently an EU member.  If Britain pulls out, that stops and British exports to the EU will face full EU tariffs.  Which means the end of that huge export market.  The EU has 10% unemployment, which means plenty of EU suppliers who would be so pleased to pick up all the Brit's business after EU tariffs made the Brits noncompetitive.
   I did see one clueless letter to the editor in the WSJ claiming that it ain't so, Britain could pull out and still enjoy EU tariff preferences.  I don't believe that.
   The Economist is clearly concerned, they see economic disaster, of the lights go out and everybody starves to death sort.  They also checked with the bookies for odds.  I think the Economist is onto something.  Where do you go to replace one third of your export business?   Canada?  Australia?  the US?  Would we let them join NAFTA?
   Britain is the second largest economy in the EU.  If they pull out it will make the job of keeping the EU from falling apart harder.  Actually, the EU has come a long way since 1945, they have passport-and-customs free travel between most EU countries, they have a single currency, they have EU wide regulations of things like food purity and labeling, electrical safety standards,building codes.  They have a ways to go to become a United States of Europe, they have no EU wide foreign policy or armed forces, and the EU government in Brussels lacks a lot of powers that the US constitution gives to Washington.
   I wish the Brits every kind of luck.  They are gonna need it. 

WSJ reviews the Chevy Malibu

At least they are reviewing a car that their readership might consider buying.  The bulk of the Journal's readers are ordinary folk who cannot afford $100,000 supercars, but might well afford a Chevy.  They discuss the various levels of plush the car comes in, ranging from $23,000 to $35,000.  Top of the line rates leather seats.  They list all the electronical goodies, heated seats, heated steering wheel, wi-fi.  The bottom of the line comes with a 4-banger 1.5 liter rated at 160 hp, the up scale models have a 2 liter 250 hp turbo engine.  Actually those horsepower rating sound a little bogus to me.  Back in the day, a stock Chevy 283 cubic inch two barrel V8 was advertised at 180 hp.  To rate a 2.0 liter (126 cubic inch)  4 cylinder engine at 200 hp makes me think they are fudging the numbers somehow.  (There are lots of ways to fudge).  They bitch that the top of the line model looks just like the bottom of the line model.  The expect that for spending an extra $12K you would get some bling on the outside of the car to make it look snappier than the stripper.
   They don't mention test driving it, handling ability, how well the antiskid handles a fresh fall of snow, how much you can get into the trunk, gas mileage, how well the suspension soaks up a New Hampshire pot hole, and a bunch of other stuff that the car mags used to tell us. 

After action reports

I didn't watch the Republican debate last night.  I been seeing plenty of instant replays on TV today.  Lotta shouting and name calling.  Some new dirt dumped on stage.  I never heard about the Trump University thing before.  Nor about Trump hiring illegal aliens.  I suppose there is something in them, but I won't get very excited about this until I see or hear a reasonably impartial account from a third party.  Trump's opponents ought to bore in on Trump's tax returns. They are real, the returns must exist somewhere, and I'll bet they have some juicy damaging deductions in them somewhere. 
   The instant replays never show anyone saying anything of substance, like what they would do if elected.  Nothing about how to create jobs, how to stop ISIS, nothing clear about Obamacare except they are agin it.  Do they want to just drop it completely and go back to where we were before Obamacare was passed?  That wasn't all that bad.  Do they want do do anything to reduce the scandalous cost of US healthcare?
   Far as I can see from the instant replays they just spent the evening yelling at each other.  Will this have any effect on Super Tuesday?

Cannon Mountain Ski Weather

Cannon got two inches of new snow last night.  Big drop in temp from yesterday, which was up to 50 F and rained hard all day.  It chilled down over night, switched over to snow, and froze my front door shut.  So I had to eyeball the new snow depth rather than measure it with a yardstick. 

Helmuth Norpoth, Stony Brook Professor, predicts Trump will beat Hilliary or Sanders.

Drudge Report carried the story here.  Since my objection to The Donald comes from my fear that Trump would loose to Hilliary, this is good news.  Cause it looks like we are nominating The Donald.