After AARP lobbied in favor of Obamacare, many of us decided we would never deal with AARP ever again. To take advantage of this wide spread sentiment, this morning I received a bit of junk mail from "The Conservative Alternative to AARP, the Association of Mature American Citizens".
Never heard of them before, but the pitch is cute. Only $6 bucks, send us your contact information, and we will do wonderful things.
It's crumpled up under the fireplace grate, to light my next fire.
This blog posts about aviation, automobiles, electronics, programming, politics and such other subjects as catch my interest. The blog is based in northern New Hampshire, USA
Thursday, April 11, 2013
You can tell the amateurs from the pros
By how they hold their guns. Watching TV clips from Syria, with young Arab guys showing off, firing light machine guns from the hip. Looks cool and all, but anyone with actual shooting experience knows that you have to aim the gun in order to hit anything. I learned that when I was 12 years old, shooting 22 rimfire at summer camp. I guess they don't have summer camp in Syria.
Milk not sweet enough?
Making the TV news, some dairies want to add aspartame to milk, and not mention same on the milk bottle label. Fox is running an interview with a sincere looking dairy farmer, out in the barn, surrounded by contented cows, explaining why he would never ever add artificial sweeteners to his milk.
So what is really going on here? Milk is tasty and sweet. Even as a child milk tasted good and we drank as much of it as Mom would allow. Mom never served chocolate milk, just the plain white stuff, and as kids we lapped it up.
So why would a dairy want to sweeten an already sweet product more? Could it be their cows were giving really horrible tasting milk? The pasture is full of garlic and wild onions, adding a strange taste to the milk that needs aspartame to cover up?
Do they think children like things really really sweet and they can increase sales by selling super sweet milk? Don't they realize that milk is purchased by mothers, not kids, and mothers will buy natural and wholesome whether the kids like it or not?
Personally I like ingredient labeling laws so when I care, I can find out what's in it. Seems reasonable to require dairies to list aspartame, and any thing else that's inside a milk bottle.
So what is really going on here? Milk is tasty and sweet. Even as a child milk tasted good and we drank as much of it as Mom would allow. Mom never served chocolate milk, just the plain white stuff, and as kids we lapped it up.
So why would a dairy want to sweeten an already sweet product more? Could it be their cows were giving really horrible tasting milk? The pasture is full of garlic and wild onions, adding a strange taste to the milk that needs aspartame to cover up?
Do they think children like things really really sweet and they can increase sales by selling super sweet milk? Don't they realize that milk is purchased by mothers, not kids, and mothers will buy natural and wholesome whether the kids like it or not?
Personally I like ingredient labeling laws so when I care, I can find out what's in it. Seems reasonable to require dairies to list aspartame, and any thing else that's inside a milk bottle.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
College Stabbing Outbreak
With an Xacto knife??? Even though I managed to put a nasty slice into my thumb with a #11 Xacto blade the other day, it's hard to take an Xacto knife as a serious weapon. The perp in this case admitted to having fantasies of stabbing people since elementary school. How does one have fantasies with a plastic handle? What ever happened to Excaliber, bowie knives, switch blades, KaBar, Gerber, or even cut throat razors? This perp clearly runs to low speed fantasies. Probably just as well, if he had used a real knife he might have killed someone.
Things sure change fast around here
This morning the Economist was doing a reader survey to find out how we readers would react to the end of Saturday mail delivery. The Economist arrives on Saturday as often as not. They take adventage of the fact that little news occurs on weekends to keep their news fresh. Either they arrive on Monday instead of Saturday, making their news two days older, or the change their publishing schedule.
Not a couple of hours after filling in the Saturday delivery survey, do I read an AP news article indicating that US snailmail is backing off, and will keep Saturday delivery after all. So much for all the Economist's planning ahead.
According to the AP, USPS needs Congressional approval to cancel Saturday delivery and has finally wised up to the fact that they ain't gonna get that approval. Nor are they gonna get the OK to close any post offices.
Dunno what's gonna happen. USPS is losing money, Congress won't let 'em cut service. I guess postal rates are going up again. Right now mailing out the month's bills costs $10-20 in postage. Maybe it's time to start paying the bills on the web?
Not a couple of hours after filling in the Saturday delivery survey, do I read an AP news article indicating that US snailmail is backing off, and will keep Saturday delivery after all. So much for all the Economist's planning ahead.
According to the AP, USPS needs Congressional approval to cancel Saturday delivery and has finally wised up to the fact that they ain't gonna get that approval. Nor are they gonna get the OK to close any post offices.
Dunno what's gonna happen. USPS is losing money, Congress won't let 'em cut service. I guess postal rates are going up again. Right now mailing out the month's bills costs $10-20 in postage. Maybe it's time to start paying the bills on the web?
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Skyfall
I know it's a little bit late to comment on this movie. But I missed it in the theaters and only got to see the Netflix DVD last night. It's OK, but only OK, even for a Bond flick. Daniel Craig does make a decent Bond. He has a hard face, that looks right for a professional secret agent. The movie opens with Bond in hot pursuit of a villain. Bond jumps aboard as the train pulls out and finds himself on a flatcar loaded with Caterpillar backhoes. Bond starts up one of the backhoes and motors up to the next railcar flattening a few shiny new sedans that happened to be in the way. Pretty soon Bond is fighting it out with the villain atop the moving freight train. A pretty young sidekick has been driving furiously to keep up with the moving train. She gets ahead, grabs her rifle, jumps out of the jeep, and attempts to help Bond by shooting the villain. She never gets a clear shot, and when she fires, it's Bond who is blown off the top of the train. Then they do the credits over a background of Bond sinking to the bottom of a river.
Well, we all know you cannot open a Bond movie by killing off Bond. Some how he comes back to life and the rest of the movie is a lot of action. They manage to resurrect the Aston Martin DB6 of Goldfinger fame, but in the final showdown scene it gets blown to bits. They also manage to kill off M (Judy Dench) in the last reel. Of the two, I will miss the Aston Martin more than Judy's hard-ass M act.
I keep thinking Bond needs to carry a better handgun than that Walther PPK. If you are going to menace someone, you need a big handgun, a little lady's model just doesn't look all that serious. Several scenes of Bond moving in on the bad guys waving the tiny little Walthers around just didn't look right. American gangster Clyde Barrow liked to carry a sawed off BAR under his overcoat. Bond ought to carry something serious too. Ian Fleming started Bond off carrying a 25 cal Beretta. After a lot of fanmail from gun buffs, Fleming wrote a scene where M and the Armorer upgrade Bond to the Walthers. Some Bond flick could redo that scene and upgrade him to something British, like a .455 Webley.
Well, we all know you cannot open a Bond movie by killing off Bond. Some how he comes back to life and the rest of the movie is a lot of action. They manage to resurrect the Aston Martin DB6 of Goldfinger fame, but in the final showdown scene it gets blown to bits. They also manage to kill off M (Judy Dench) in the last reel. Of the two, I will miss the Aston Martin more than Judy's hard-ass M act.
I keep thinking Bond needs to carry a better handgun than that Walther PPK. If you are going to menace someone, you need a big handgun, a little lady's model just doesn't look all that serious. Several scenes of Bond moving in on the bad guys waving the tiny little Walthers around just didn't look right. American gangster Clyde Barrow liked to carry a sawed off BAR under his overcoat. Bond ought to carry something serious too. Ian Fleming started Bond off carrying a 25 cal Beretta. After a lot of fanmail from gun buffs, Fleming wrote a scene where M and the Armorer upgrade Bond to the Walthers. Some Bond flick could redo that scene and upgrade him to something British, like a .455 Webley.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Up Country Town Meeting
Our new democratic state rep, Rebecca Brown, held a town meeting last night at Wendles, a local sandwich joint. Attending were about 20 democrats and yours truly. Discussion ranged around the state. Legalizing gambling drew a lot of attention. The attraction is money. Maggie the Hassan promised gambling would bring in $80 million. Even the democratic controlled state house of representatives didn't believe this and the wacked Maggie's $80 million out of the budget revenue estimates.
Sue Forth, another state rep from I-don't-know-where mentioned that the teacher's union opposed the budget deal because it didn't have gambling revenue in it. Sue said she didn't understand why the teachers felt that way. A number of people in the audience piped up and said the teachers want gambling revenue to pay for their retirements.
A lot of democrats present feel that NH needs more revenue. That sounds better than "tax hike". They pretty much understand about "the pledge" (No broad based taxes). So they like gambling. Someone proposed putting a $1 a bottle tax on wine. He claimed that would be enough balance the budget.
Rebecca floated the idea of tying Northern Pass to gambling, something like this. "If you, the governor, will insist on Northern Pass burying the wires, we North country reps will support your gambling bill." Response to this idea was no better than mixed. Everybody present thinks burying a million volt transmission line is doable.
In real life it is so costly that they will find a right of way thru Vermont before they bury the wires in NH. Nobody wanted to talk about all the property taxes the Northern Pass transmission line would pay to towns. We oughta know up here. Moore Dam taxes pay for a lot of stuff in Littleton.
Sue Forth, another state rep from I-don't-know-where mentioned that the teacher's union opposed the budget deal because it didn't have gambling revenue in it. Sue said she didn't understand why the teachers felt that way. A number of people in the audience piped up and said the teachers want gambling revenue to pay for their retirements.
A lot of democrats present feel that NH needs more revenue. That sounds better than "tax hike". They pretty much understand about "the pledge" (No broad based taxes). So they like gambling. Someone proposed putting a $1 a bottle tax on wine. He claimed that would be enough balance the budget.
Rebecca floated the idea of tying Northern Pass to gambling, something like this. "If you, the governor, will insist on Northern Pass burying the wires, we North country reps will support your gambling bill." Response to this idea was no better than mixed. Everybody present thinks burying a million volt transmission line is doable.
In real life it is so costly that they will find a right of way thru Vermont before they bury the wires in NH. Nobody wanted to talk about all the property taxes the Northern Pass transmission line would pay to towns. We oughta know up here. Moore Dam taxes pay for a lot of stuff in Littleton.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The forty knot sailboat arrives
Nifty pictures here. It's totally cool, a big racing hydrofoil up planing on foils. I think they are going to sail for the America's Cup in this crazy contraption.
This is an idea that has been around for fifty years that I know of. I read a book "The Forty Knot Sailboat" back in 1967. The idea is to cut the water drag by getting the hull up out of the water and up on plane. Doing it with hydrofoils gives a smoother ride than banging the entire hull from wavetop to wavetop. Ordinary planeing hulls will beat them selves to pieces if they are planed in all but the calmest of waters, so the smooth ride bit is important.
The 1967 book claimed that a hydrofoil sailing yacht would be faster than motor yachts, fast enough to outrun a storm. The author said that conventional sailing yachts could do little to avoid a storm, they just had to heave to, batten down the hatches and spend a day or so getting bounced around by waves and drenched by rain. Whereas a hydrofoil could sail fast enough to get out of the path of the storm and avoid getting shellacked by nasty weather.
Off shore cruising, say a run across the Atlantic, is still a sailing yacht activity. Motor yachts cannot carry enough fuel to venture offshore, unless they are as big as a small steamship.
This is an idea that has been around for fifty years that I know of. I read a book "The Forty Knot Sailboat" back in 1967. The idea is to cut the water drag by getting the hull up out of the water and up on plane. Doing it with hydrofoils gives a smoother ride than banging the entire hull from wavetop to wavetop. Ordinary planeing hulls will beat them selves to pieces if they are planed in all but the calmest of waters, so the smooth ride bit is important.
The 1967 book claimed that a hydrofoil sailing yacht would be faster than motor yachts, fast enough to outrun a storm. The author said that conventional sailing yachts could do little to avoid a storm, they just had to heave to, batten down the hatches and spend a day or so getting bounced around by waves and drenched by rain. Whereas a hydrofoil could sail fast enough to get out of the path of the storm and avoid getting shellacked by nasty weather.
Off shore cruising, say a run across the Atlantic, is still a sailing yacht activity. Motor yachts cannot carry enough fuel to venture offshore, unless they are as big as a small steamship.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Private sector creates wealth, Public sector consumes it
You hear democrats pushing for more public sector jobs "to improve the economy". They bewail the sequester and belt tightening at the state and local level that has laid off cops, teachers, and firemen, and they claim that hiring more public sector employees will reduce unemployment and make the economy grow again.
Trouble is, public sector jobs are a drag on the economy, they take money away from workers and businesses. This money does not produce any wealth. Take too much and the businesses have to raise prices, and the workers demand more money, which again raises prices.
Back in Keynes day, it didn't matter. Today, when prices go up, people buy from overseas sources (China) 'cause its cheaper. Go to WalMarts, everything on the shelves is made in China. Back in Keynes' time there were no overseas sources.
Today, countries that burden their businesses and workers with too many taxes find industry leaves their country for lower tax (also lower wage) overseas.
Can you say "Shoot yourself in the foot"?
Trouble is, public sector jobs are a drag on the economy, they take money away from workers and businesses. This money does not produce any wealth. Take too much and the businesses have to raise prices, and the workers demand more money, which again raises prices.
Back in Keynes day, it didn't matter. Today, when prices go up, people buy from overseas sources (China) 'cause its cheaper. Go to WalMarts, everything on the shelves is made in China. Back in Keynes' time there were no overseas sources.
Today, countries that burden their businesses and workers with too many taxes find industry leaves their country for lower tax (also lower wage) overseas.
Can you say "Shoot yourself in the foot"?
Friday, April 5, 2013
Provocative? who is provocative?
The White House announced that it will stop making nasty noises at the North Koreans for fear that we might provoke them. Oh really?
All official and unofficial (the MSM mostly) statements that I have heard on TV are super bland. Never a threat, always expressions of regret. We flew a few fancy warplanes into South Korea, but they turned around and flew back to bases in the US and Japan. That's not provovative, that's the bare minimum of support given to a loyal ally, an important trading partner, and a good friend facing extreme pressure. The North Koreans have denounced the 1950's armistice agreement, which is equivalent to starting up the Korean War again. The South Koreans are understandable worried (probably scared too) and they deserve a tiny bit of US support. Which is all they got. Tiny, emphasize tiny.
The North Korean's are vigorously stirring all sorts of pots, for reasons that make no sense to us. When they get over their mad, things will settle down. What we say and do doesn't matter at all. It's all up to the North Koreans.
All official and unofficial (the MSM mostly) statements that I have heard on TV are super bland. Never a threat, always expressions of regret. We flew a few fancy warplanes into South Korea, but they turned around and flew back to bases in the US and Japan. That's not provovative, that's the bare minimum of support given to a loyal ally, an important trading partner, and a good friend facing extreme pressure. The North Koreans have denounced the 1950's armistice agreement, which is equivalent to starting up the Korean War again. The South Koreans are understandable worried (probably scared too) and they deserve a tiny bit of US support. Which is all they got. Tiny, emphasize tiny.
The North Korean's are vigorously stirring all sorts of pots, for reasons that make no sense to us. When they get over their mad, things will settle down. What we say and do doesn't matter at all. It's all up to the North Koreans.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Can landowners shoot down snoopy drones?
It's a lovely day, warm and dry and sunny. Friends and family are over and the barbie is hot in the back yard. Suddenly a buzzy helicopter drone with a TV camera swoops over your backyard.
Question: Can you take your shotgun and blow the pesky drone out of the air?
Question: Can you take your shotgun and blow the pesky drone out of the air?
How crazy are the North Koreans? Really?
Fox TV doesn't know. They are beginning to think the NORKS are really going to kick off the second Korean War. Which would be really crazy. If they do it, they will force the Japanese and the South Koreans to go nuclear just to contain the NORKS If the North Koreans actually nuke anybody, they will get nuked back. They can do a lot of damage to South Korea, they have artillery pieces that won't quit lined up on the border, and Seoul, the South Korean capital, a major city in a class with New York and Chicago, is easily with in range of North Korean guns. They could pound Seoul flat, inflicting a million casualties in a matter of hours.
Let's hope they aren't that crazy.
Let's hope they aren't that crazy.
TV commercials grow funnier
The latest amusing TV commercial has the AFLAC duck undergoing physical therapy, swimming, arm and biceps machines, stair climbing and all the rest. It's as funny as the GIECO gecko flubbing his lines filming a new commercial.
Littoral Combat ships
Question: What is a littoral and how do you combat it? Most warships have names that suggest what the ship is supposed to do. Destroyer, battleship, aircraft carrier, mine sweeper, and so on. Even a land lubber can form an idea of what such a ship is supposed to do. Where as combating littorals draws a blank, even among sea goers.
The dictionary defines littoral as seashore or coast. So presumably the littoral combat ship (LCS) is supposed to operate close to shore. In the old days such a ship was called "coast defense", but real Navy officers want to operate world wide and in blue water, and so "coast defense" became perjorative (bad think) and we have "littoral combat" instead.
The Navy wants a fleet of 50 odd littoral combat ships and already has half a dozen in service or under construction. They are small (2500-3000 tons) fast (40 knots) stealthy, and pricey ($440 million each) which is a lot of money for a small ship. They don't carry the Aegis SAM system to save money, space, and weight. Aegis is big, and effective and has been the standard anti air system on Navy ships for many years. Without Aegis, the littoral combat ship will be in trouble if enemy aircraft appear. LCS is armed with a single 2 inch gun, enough to deal with a Somali pirate motor boat perhaps, but not enough to convince a regular merchantman to stop, change course, or obey orders, not enough for anti air craft work, not enough for shore bombardment, and certainly not enough to fight it out against an enemy destroyer.
LCS does carry a lot of other neat stuff, like a flight deck big enough to operate a couple of helicopters, a stern boat launch well to put Marine landing parties ashore, a dual power plant (gas turbines for the 40 knot dash and diesels for long range cruising). The plating is all sloped to make it stealthy.
LCS doesn't have armor plate and is built to ordinary commercial standards rather than the tougher Navy standards. The Navy has said the LCS is not expected to remain mission capable after taking a hit. A nice way of saying that one hit will sink it. This is not unusual for a Navy ship, certainly WWII destroyers would sink after taking a solid hit.
I would feel better about LCS if they were cheaper. A lot cheaper. And carried a real gun.
The dictionary defines littoral as seashore or coast. So presumably the littoral combat ship (LCS) is supposed to operate close to shore. In the old days such a ship was called "coast defense", but real Navy officers want to operate world wide and in blue water, and so "coast defense" became perjorative (bad think) and we have "littoral combat" instead.
The Navy wants a fleet of 50 odd littoral combat ships and already has half a dozen in service or under construction. They are small (2500-3000 tons) fast (40 knots) stealthy, and pricey ($440 million each) which is a lot of money for a small ship. They don't carry the Aegis SAM system to save money, space, and weight. Aegis is big, and effective and has been the standard anti air system on Navy ships for many years. Without Aegis, the littoral combat ship will be in trouble if enemy aircraft appear. LCS is armed with a single 2 inch gun, enough to deal with a Somali pirate motor boat perhaps, but not enough to convince a regular merchantman to stop, change course, or obey orders, not enough for anti air craft work, not enough for shore bombardment, and certainly not enough to fight it out against an enemy destroyer.
LCS does carry a lot of other neat stuff, like a flight deck big enough to operate a couple of helicopters, a stern boat launch well to put Marine landing parties ashore, a dual power plant (gas turbines for the 40 knot dash and diesels for long range cruising). The plating is all sloped to make it stealthy.
LCS doesn't have armor plate and is built to ordinary commercial standards rather than the tougher Navy standards. The Navy has said the LCS is not expected to remain mission capable after taking a hit. A nice way of saying that one hit will sink it. This is not unusual for a Navy ship, certainly WWII destroyers would sink after taking a solid hit.
I would feel better about LCS if they were cheaper. A lot cheaper. And carried a real gun.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Rutger's Cans a Coach
Some coach at Rutgers is in trouble, as like getting fired, for using bad language and homosexual slurs on his players. The Fox Five talking heads was hashing this over, some of them saying good riddance, others are saying this is the wussification of America, winning coaches have to get in their athlete's faces.
That's one of those things. There is a fine line between pushing the team hard to win, and being an asshole. Without being there, and knowing the coach and the players, and listening to endless video tapes of practices, I would not venture an opinion in this case.
Nor can I offer any rule of thumb to sort things out. All I can say is coaches that I have played for or known, Tom Ludwig, Fred Swan, Col. Raiford, John Roberts, were tough, but they were gentlemen. I never remember them using bad language or belittling players or impugning a player's sexual orientation.
The Fox Five would have done more good if they had attempted to spell out the difference between tough and pushy and being an asshole.
That's one of those things. There is a fine line between pushing the team hard to win, and being an asshole. Without being there, and knowing the coach and the players, and listening to endless video tapes of practices, I would not venture an opinion in this case.
Nor can I offer any rule of thumb to sort things out. All I can say is coaches that I have played for or known, Tom Ludwig, Fred Swan, Col. Raiford, John Roberts, were tough, but they were gentlemen. I never remember them using bad language or belittling players or impugning a player's sexual orientation.
The Fox Five would have done more good if they had attempted to spell out the difference between tough and pushy and being an asshole.
Bicknell's Thrush goes to court
A Vermont green group is going to sue the US Forest Service on behalf of Bicknell's Thrush. They claim the Forest Service isn't doing enough to protect this endangered species.
Bicknell's Thrush didn't even exist before 1995. Up until 1995 thrushes were thrushes, just an ordinary songbird. Somehow in 1995, thrush lovers managed to get Bicknell's Thrush declared a separate species, different in some way from just plain thrushes. The differences are minute, a bird watcher's website warns that Bicknell's Thrush is difficult to distinguish in the field. Anyhow the thrush lovers managed to get Bicknell's Thrush declared an endangered species shortly after getting it declared a species.
Bicknell's Thrush was immediately put to work slowing down skiing at Mittersill. The Forest Service managed to postpone the re opening of the old Mittersill ski trails for many years because green groups claimed that skiing would disturb critical thrush habitat. Finally after much paperwork, it was decided that Bicknell's Thrush didn't nest during ski season and the trails could be skied without endangering the thrush.
The green groups next employed Bicknell's Thrush to slow down the scenic ridgeline wind farms that are disfiguring the NH landscape and raising NH electric bills. According to the Littleton Courier, they are giving the thrush some backup by hiring lawyers and going to court.
If we worked at it, we might be able to convince the Forest Service that the Northern Pass project is bad for our favorite thrush.
Bicknell's Thrush didn't even exist before 1995. Up until 1995 thrushes were thrushes, just an ordinary songbird. Somehow in 1995, thrush lovers managed to get Bicknell's Thrush declared a separate species, different in some way from just plain thrushes. The differences are minute, a bird watcher's website warns that Bicknell's Thrush is difficult to distinguish in the field. Anyhow the thrush lovers managed to get Bicknell's Thrush declared an endangered species shortly after getting it declared a species.
Bicknell's Thrush was immediately put to work slowing down skiing at Mittersill. The Forest Service managed to postpone the re opening of the old Mittersill ski trails for many years because green groups claimed that skiing would disturb critical thrush habitat. Finally after much paperwork, it was decided that Bicknell's Thrush didn't nest during ski season and the trails could be skied without endangering the thrush.
The green groups next employed Bicknell's Thrush to slow down the scenic ridgeline wind farms that are disfiguring the NH landscape and raising NH electric bills. According to the Littleton Courier, they are giving the thrush some backup by hiring lawyers and going to court.
If we worked at it, we might be able to convince the Forest Service that the Northern Pass project is bad for our favorite thrush.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
No Nukes is Good Nukes?
Fox TV was having a discussion of US nuclear weapons policy yesterday. They had a guy saying that the US ought to get out of the nuke business, reduce our arsenal to zero, make the country nuke free. This was a sacred mission for this guy.
I don't agree. US nuclear superiority kept the cold war cold for fifty years. That's a pretty good track record. Let's not mess it up. The world is OK with the Americans having most of the nukes. They figure we will do the right thing by them.
The anti nuke guy passed out a whopper and no one called him on it. He claimed that the number of nuclear states is smaller today than it was in the past. Not true. The number of nuclear states has been rising slowly since 1945. No nuclear state has ever given up nukes
I don't agree. US nuclear superiority kept the cold war cold for fifty years. That's a pretty good track record. Let's not mess it up. The world is OK with the Americans having most of the nukes. They figure we will do the right thing by them.
The anti nuke guy passed out a whopper and no one called him on it. He claimed that the number of nuclear states is smaller today than it was in the past. Not true. The number of nuclear states has been rising slowly since 1945. No nuclear state has ever given up nukes
Monday, April 1, 2013
Too many software guys with nothing to do
Facebook clearly has too much spare time. Just to keep busy, they rearranged my "timeline" Now the text is on the left and the photos on the right. Used to be the other way round.
This is a constructive use of software development resources?
This is a constructive use of software development resources?
Florida girls are pretty tough
This was on TV. Florida, nice sunny day, an elementary school building. Nice and neat and well kept. Lawn is mowed, sidewalks are weed free. All is in order except, for a seven foot alligator strolling along the sidewalk. Gator is in an ugly mood, snaps at the camera, snaps at everything.
The school resource officer, a strapping young blonde woman walks up to the gator and drops a rope around its neck. This sets the gator off, lot of writhing and snapping and bad temper. Blonde is not fazed, she gets the gator turned upside down and duct tapes its jaws shut. Then she calls animal rescue to haul it away. All in a day's work. She didn't even get her uniform mussed up.
Pretty tough young lady.
The school resource officer, a strapping young blonde woman walks up to the gator and drops a rope around its neck. This sets the gator off, lot of writhing and snapping and bad temper. Blonde is not fazed, she gets the gator turned upside down and duct tapes its jaws shut. Then she calls animal rescue to haul it away. All in a day's work. She didn't even get her uniform mussed up.
Pretty tough young lady.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Robo Disk Jockey is broken
The Notch, FM 106.something is a strange FM station. It plays decent pop music with very few commercials or station breaks They don't do news, best we get is an occasional weather report. I don't know what their business plan is, they don't run nearly enough ads to pay their electric bill. To cut costs they don't have a disk jockey, they have some kind of robo player that keeps the music coming.
Only, robo player broke down yesterday. The music is shutting off at random, in the middle of a tune. After some minutes of dead air, the next tune begins to play. They apparently don't have maintenance people. I'm wondering how long they will last. Is someone trying to fix it, or have they gone out of business except someone forgot to turn off their transmitter?
Only, robo player broke down yesterday. The music is shutting off at random, in the middle of a tune. After some minutes of dead air, the next tune begins to play. They apparently don't have maintenance people. I'm wondering how long they will last. Is someone trying to fix it, or have they gone out of business except someone forgot to turn off their transmitter?
Polarization, (political type)
Been reading " The Second Civil War, How Extreme Partisanship has paralysed Washington and Polarized American" by Ronald Brownstein The title pretty much sums up the book. It was published in 2007, just before Great Depression 2.0 It treats the situation as a Washington DC problem, a problem caused by Congressmen who are no longer interested in forging legislation acceptable to both sides and passing it. Brownstein complains that modern Congressmen are more interested in sticking it to the other side than forming a concensus. All of this is interesting, but Brownstein misses the point.
Congressmen vote their districts. When the district has the bit in its teeth and is running in one direction, the Congressman must vote that way, if he wants to remain a Congressman. Congressmen are only free to cut deals on issues that their district doesn't care about.
The reason Congress is more polarized is that the voters are more polarized. The country is evenly split between liberals and conservatives (alternate names for Democrats and Republicans) Neither side has enough votes to push their legislation thru, so nothing gets done. Brownstein's book would have been more interesting if he had investigated the causes of this vast split in American voters. Why are the voters more partisan than they used to be? The last election was a close one. The Democrats didn't win enough House seats to give the sort of control that FDR enjoyed. Until there is a sea change voter's attitudes about taxes, spending, abortion, and immigration, which elects a solid majority in favor of one course of action, little will get done.
These things take time. If you believe the polls, we are seeing such a change in attitudes about gay marriage right now. I don't really expect that kind of movement across the board. So we will have to bumble along with Washington deadlocked for quite a few more years. This ain't all bad, a lot of destructive legislation won't get passed.
Congressmen vote their districts. When the district has the bit in its teeth and is running in one direction, the Congressman must vote that way, if he wants to remain a Congressman. Congressmen are only free to cut deals on issues that their district doesn't care about.
The reason Congress is more polarized is that the voters are more polarized. The country is evenly split between liberals and conservatives (alternate names for Democrats and Republicans) Neither side has enough votes to push their legislation thru, so nothing gets done. Brownstein's book would have been more interesting if he had investigated the causes of this vast split in American voters. Why are the voters more partisan than they used to be? The last election was a close one. The Democrats didn't win enough House seats to give the sort of control that FDR enjoyed. Until there is a sea change voter's attitudes about taxes, spending, abortion, and immigration, which elects a solid majority in favor of one course of action, little will get done.
These things take time. If you believe the polls, we are seeing such a change in attitudes about gay marriage right now. I don't really expect that kind of movement across the board. So we will have to bumble along with Washington deadlocked for quite a few more years. This ain't all bad, a lot of destructive legislation won't get passed.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
$4 gasoline, its coming soon
Governor Maggie the Hassan wants another 12 cents a gallon for the state. She and the democrats claim it is needed for "infrastructure maintenance". Actually they want to use it to finish widening I93 south of Manchester. Then Obama's EPA announces new rules reducing the amount of sulfur in gasoline. The bureaucrats claim it will only cost an additional penny per gallon. The oil industry says it will cost more like 9 cents a gallon. I know which numbers I trust more.
So between Maggie and Barry, 12 cents plus 9 cents is 21 cents a gallon price hike. When the price of crude goes up again it will be even worse.
So between Maggie and Barry, 12 cents plus 9 cents is 21 cents a gallon price hike. When the price of crude goes up again it will be even worse.
Friday, March 29, 2013
The Economist admits Global Warming Ends
Breakthough. The Economist has been strong for Global Warming for years. They like cap and trade, carbon taxes, alternate energy, CAFE and all that politically correct stuff. In this week's issue they finally admit that global temperatures have been flat since 1998. Seas ain't gonna rise, we will have snow for skiing and enough cold weather to make the sap rise so we can make maple syrup. They show some graphs of world temperatures with a flat top for the last 15 years.
They have no idea why this is happening. All the computer models predict warming. Measured atmospheric CO2 is up, reflective aerosols are down. But the decline cannot be hidden any longer.
The global warming skeptics have been soap boxing about the lack of warming for some time now. To have a pro warmist magazine like the Economist pick up on it means the data is fairly convincing.
However, we must not let our guard down says the Economist. That nasty warming might come back. We need to keep inflicting economic pain upon ourselves just is case.
They have no idea why this is happening. All the computer models predict warming. Measured atmospheric CO2 is up, reflective aerosols are down. But the decline cannot be hidden any longer.
The global warming skeptics have been soap boxing about the lack of warming for some time now. To have a pro warmist magazine like the Economist pick up on it means the data is fairly convincing.
However, we must not let our guard down says the Economist. That nasty warming might come back. We need to keep inflicting economic pain upon ourselves just is case.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
How secure is secure?
The TV is full of talk about "securing the border" before doing an immigration bill. Sounds good, but what do we mean by "secure". No matter what we do, the occasional lucky alien will get across now and then. And, those that do, won't tell anyone that they made it. So there is no way to actually measure the security of the border, in terms of how many aliens got thru or didn't get thru.
More reasonable is to talk about a level of effort. How much effort should be expended on border security? For me, I'd settle for a good chain link fence running all the way from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, paralleled with a road to permit jeep borne patrols all along the border. And enough Border Patrolmen to run a patrol about once an hour. Do this much, and I'd call the border secure even if a few illegal aliens did slip across from time to time.
Others might call for more or less security.
If "a secure border" is necessary to more forward on an immigration bill, then we need to agree on just how secure is secure enough. That is, if we honestly want to negotiate an immigration bill.
We have plenty of dishonest politicians who talk the talk but actually won't walk the walk.
More reasonable is to talk about a level of effort. How much effort should be expended on border security? For me, I'd settle for a good chain link fence running all the way from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, paralleled with a road to permit jeep borne patrols all along the border. And enough Border Patrolmen to run a patrol about once an hour. Do this much, and I'd call the border secure even if a few illegal aliens did slip across from time to time.
Others might call for more or less security.
If "a secure border" is necessary to more forward on an immigration bill, then we need to agree on just how secure is secure enough. That is, if we honestly want to negotiate an immigration bill.
We have plenty of dishonest politicians who talk the talk but actually won't walk the walk.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
We don't oppose it 'cause it's malarkey
Instead we oppose it 'cause it is vaguely associated with religion. An Arizona high school was teaching from materials supplied by United Scholastic. United Scholastic is associated in some way with the Church of Scientology. They didn't say just what the association was (ownership? historical? shared board of directors?). And they went on at length complaining that using United Scholastics stuff was a violation of the first amendment (establishment of religion)
They didn't say anything about whether the United Scholastics material was any good or not. That apparently doesn't matter.
L Ron Hubbard started writing science fiction back in the 1950's. He was only middling good as a writer but he did get some stories published in Astounding Science Fiction (Later Analog Science Fiction) the premier SF mag. His paperbacks stayed in print into the 1980's. In the later 1950's he invented the "science" of Dianetics. From there he went on to found the Church of Scientology, a cult which has been in and out of trouble with the law, here and overseas, for many many years.
With that background, I would be intensely suspicious of anything associated with the Church of Scientology. Because everything else L Ron Hubbard had a hand in was pure malarkey.
However our crusaders from NPR cannot be troubled with evaluating the worth of the United Scholastic material. It's far more important to trash it for being "religion".
They didn't say anything about whether the United Scholastics material was any good or not. That apparently doesn't matter.
L Ron Hubbard started writing science fiction back in the 1950's. He was only middling good as a writer but he did get some stories published in Astounding Science Fiction (Later Analog Science Fiction) the premier SF mag. His paperbacks stayed in print into the 1980's. In the later 1950's he invented the "science" of Dianetics. From there he went on to found the Church of Scientology, a cult which has been in and out of trouble with the law, here and overseas, for many many years.
With that background, I would be intensely suspicious of anything associated with the Church of Scientology. Because everything else L Ron Hubbard had a hand in was pure malarkey.
However our crusaders from NPR cannot be troubled with evaluating the worth of the United Scholastic material. It's far more important to trash it for being "religion".
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Background check or blacklist?
The gun control folks are calling for yet more background checks. Like background checks for sales between family members, friends, and private individuals. So someone picks up the phone, calls a magic phone number and asks if it is OK to sell a gun to so and so. At the far end of the phone, some bureaucrat checks the name against a list. If the name isn't on the list he says "OK sell it to him".
In short we have the government running a blacklist. Once your name goes on the list, you cannot purchase firearms. Since this list is so damaging, ethical doctors are reluctant to mess up their patient's lives by calling the government and saying " I was just treating so an so and I think he is a danger to society and you ought to put him on the gun blacklist."
If the government is going to run a gun blacklist, there ought to be clear rules about how much evidence is needed to blacklist a citizen, rules for getting off the black list, and strict rules keeping the black list secret. Amid all the happy talk about more background checks I haven't heard any talk about fair and just procedures for operating the black list.
In short we have the government running a blacklist. Once your name goes on the list, you cannot purchase firearms. Since this list is so damaging, ethical doctors are reluctant to mess up their patient's lives by calling the government and saying " I was just treating so an so and I think he is a danger to society and you ought to put him on the gun blacklist."
If the government is going to run a gun blacklist, there ought to be clear rules about how much evidence is needed to blacklist a citizen, rules for getting off the black list, and strict rules keeping the black list secret. Amid all the happy talk about more background checks I haven't heard any talk about fair and just procedures for operating the black list.
Ford's admen ride again
A week or so ago I twitted Ford over their ineffectual TV ad for an SUV. This morning comes word via NPR that Ford India had done worse. They chartered the JWT agency to do some ads. JWT came up with an ad to show how big the trunk was. The ad showed three women, bound and gagged, being loaded into the trunk. Apparently Ford never actually ran this ad, but copies of it leaked out to the public and caused a furor. It got so bad that Ford is publicly apologizing for the ad.
Great thinking Ford. Sell cars by showing them used for crime. Even though V8 Fords were Bonnie and Clyde's favorite getaway cars, Ford never mentioned this in ads. Let's be charitable and put this down to Indian Ford executives who presumable are less sensitive to public values than American ones.
Mulally ought to schedule all his execs for remedial ad creation 101.
Great thinking Ford. Sell cars by showing them used for crime. Even though V8 Fords were Bonnie and Clyde's favorite getaway cars, Ford never mentioned this in ads. Let's be charitable and put this down to Indian Ford executives who presumable are less sensitive to public values than American ones.
Mulally ought to schedule all his execs for remedial ad creation 101.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Pricey Corporate Jet
The new version of the Gulfstream bizjet retails for a mere $64.5 million. Nice plane and all, but how do I explain to my stockholders why I blew $64 million on a bizjet instead of paying it out as dividends? Especially as IRS will make me capitalize it so I cannot even deduct the cost from earnings.
Vikings on History Channel
I think I am going to stop watching this one. Too much looting and murdering and general crime. Too many bad looking guys with strange haircuts and shaggy beards. Everyone is a bad guy, no good guys. Terrible lighting, every indoor scene is too damn dark. Color is poor. Too many actors mumble their lines.
Too bad. The title was attractive.
Too bad. The title was attractive.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Republican Post Mortem Report
After the 2012 wipeout, the Republican National Committee has issued a "What went wrong and how do we fix it" (aka Growth and Opportunity) report. It came to me yesterday. I skimmed it. It's wordy. It's full of nice sounding but non specific verbiage, repeated over and over again. It fails to grapple with the key issues.
Number One key issue is the women's vote. We lost the woman's vote to Obama by a margin of 10%. Right there is the whole election. Ten percent of half the population is more the all the Hispanics, and all the gays put together. Republicans have to figure out what has to be done to regain the woman's vote. Does the party have to drop it's anti abortion stance? Does it have to offer free contraceptives to all? How many women care about charter schools? Do we need to support charter schools? Teachers (mostly women) are dead set against charter schools. Are there enough mothers who care about charters to offset all those unionized teachers? How many women care about an opportunity to join the infantry? Does maternity leave (or paternity leave) have any resonance with woman voters? Do women want the right to carry concealed or do they want to take the guns away from the bad guys?
Grow and Opportunity report simply doesn't deal with woman's issues. Probably too controversial.
Number Two key issue is the youth vote, youth being everyone under 30. Youth care deeply about the internet, specifically the ability to download neat stuff, music, and movies. They hate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They hate the current copyright law that extends copyright forever. They don't like taxing sales over the internet.
Young folk are universally in favor of gay marriage. They see it as a fundamental right, and opposition is seen like racial prejudice or antisemitism. And, most young folk see nothing wrong with abortion.
And where does the Republican Party stand on any of these issues? Who knows, Growth and Opportunity report is silent. Again, probably too controversial.
Until the Republicans debate these real issues and come to some conclusions, the Democrats will win to next election.
Number One key issue is the women's vote. We lost the woman's vote to Obama by a margin of 10%. Right there is the whole election. Ten percent of half the population is more the all the Hispanics, and all the gays put together. Republicans have to figure out what has to be done to regain the woman's vote. Does the party have to drop it's anti abortion stance? Does it have to offer free contraceptives to all? How many women care about charter schools? Do we need to support charter schools? Teachers (mostly women) are dead set against charter schools. Are there enough mothers who care about charters to offset all those unionized teachers? How many women care about an opportunity to join the infantry? Does maternity leave (or paternity leave) have any resonance with woman voters? Do women want the right to carry concealed or do they want to take the guns away from the bad guys?
Grow and Opportunity report simply doesn't deal with woman's issues. Probably too controversial.
Number Two key issue is the youth vote, youth being everyone under 30. Youth care deeply about the internet, specifically the ability to download neat stuff, music, and movies. They hate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They hate the current copyright law that extends copyright forever. They don't like taxing sales over the internet.
Young folk are universally in favor of gay marriage. They see it as a fundamental right, and opposition is seen like racial prejudice or antisemitism. And, most young folk see nothing wrong with abortion.
And where does the Republican Party stand on any of these issues? Who knows, Growth and Opportunity report is silent. Again, probably too controversial.
Until the Republicans debate these real issues and come to some conclusions, the Democrats will win to next election.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Evolution of domestic dogs
Interesting article here about discovery of a dog 33,000 years old. That's a long time ago. The article talks a lot about "morphology" (size and shape) and DNA analysis. The author argues that this isn't really the beginning of domestication of dogs, the "morphology" is pretty much pure wolf and the DNA matching is more wolf than dog. He speculates that this specimen represents an early attempt at domestication that didn't work out, or the harshness of the last ice age which started maybe 20,000 years ago, aborted the domestication.
Perhaps.
In actual fact, the difference between domestic dogs and wolves is psychological, more than anything else. Dogs have a much better attitude about humans than wolves do. Dogs will accept petting, food, affection, and even obey orders. Wolves, not so much. Modern German Shepherds and Huskies look a lot like wolves but aren't. It's not clear to me that this psychological difference would make much difference in the DNA or in the shape of bones.
It's a good bet that wolves were domesticates when some human children came upon orphan wolf pups in the wild. When young, pups are cute, humans are attracted to cute, and surely the children carried the pup[s] home and made pets of them. Some wolf pups so adopted must have carried the genes needed to bond with humans. Probably other orphan pups lacked these genes and ran away when they grew old enough or were driven off when they did something wolflike such as threatening small children. Some how, an adopted wolf cub who hung with the humans must have found a mate somewhere, and gave birth to a litter of pups while living with humans. It would only take a couple of dog generations to establish a domestic strain of dogs that were breeding while living with humans. Dogs are pretty useful in the hunt and in guarding the camp. The humans would have taken to them. Despite the harshness of the coming ice age, it's hard to see that breaking up the domestication of dogs once begun.
Perhaps.
In actual fact, the difference between domestic dogs and wolves is psychological, more than anything else. Dogs have a much better attitude about humans than wolves do. Dogs will accept petting, food, affection, and even obey orders. Wolves, not so much. Modern German Shepherds and Huskies look a lot like wolves but aren't. It's not clear to me that this psychological difference would make much difference in the DNA or in the shape of bones.
It's a good bet that wolves were domesticates when some human children came upon orphan wolf pups in the wild. When young, pups are cute, humans are attracted to cute, and surely the children carried the pup[s] home and made pets of them. Some wolf pups so adopted must have carried the genes needed to bond with humans. Probably other orphan pups lacked these genes and ran away when they grew old enough or were driven off when they did something wolflike such as threatening small children. Some how, an adopted wolf cub who hung with the humans must have found a mate somewhere, and gave birth to a litter of pups while living with humans. It would only take a couple of dog generations to establish a domestic strain of dogs that were breeding while living with humans. Dogs are pretty useful in the hunt and in guarding the camp. The humans would have taken to them. Despite the harshness of the coming ice age, it's hard to see that breaking up the domestication of dogs once begun.
Continuing Resolution is real, Budget is show
The TV news had been full of budget talk, the Ryan budget, the Senate budget, the White House budget, and who passed what. They are threatening to withhold Senate salaries unless the Senate gets its act together and passes a budget. The newsies love this story and give it a lot of air play.
The budget story, while entertaining, isn't all that important. A budget just expresses hopes. Budgets do NOT allocate money, authorize spending, authorize programs or hiring or retention of federal employees. The budget just says "We want spending to be so much, taxes to be hiked so much, and we will only run a deficit so big." Worthy thoughts, but of no real effect.
Taxes will be what they were last year unless Obama musters enough votes for a tax hike. Spending on "entitlements" (Medicare, Medicaid, social security, pensions,and some other stuff) will be what it will be. Social Security will write checks to all those eligible, Medicare and Medicare will cover the medical bills of all those who go to their doctors, pensions will get paid. This happens automatically, or at least til the money runs out. The rest of federal spending is "discretionary" meaning Congress must pass a law authorizing the spending of tax payer money. Discretionary is Defense, Justice, State, HUD, Homeland Security, Energy, EPA, Agriculture, FAA, FCC, Highway Trust Fund, and a bunch more.
In the old days, Congress would pass a separate law (appropriation bill) for each discretionary organization. This process was bogging down even back in the 1960's. Appropriations bills were always late. USAF in those days never knew what it could spend until the very last day of the fiscal year. Each year the start of the new fiscal year was rolled back a month to give Congress more time to wrangle over appropriation bills. Eventually Congress got so late that they skipped an entire fiscal year.
It got so bad that the new fiscal year would start but Congress hadn't passed any appropriation bills at all. In order to prevent a total shutdown, Congress passed a "Continuing Resolution" that year which said "All you agencies can spend what you spent last year, with a few little changes here and there. "
Continuing Resolutions have the advantage of being filibuster proof. While hard core senators could hold up appropriations for this department or that department, they never had the stones to hold up the entire federal government. And, it's very difficult to figure out just how much money is going where. You have to know what the appropriations were when the last appropriations bill was passed, (ancient history) and work in all the ups and downs from all the subsequent continuing resolutions. Doing this is a life's work. Congressmen just vote to pass the thing. They don't really know where the money is going.
Anyhow, the last continuing resolution expires at the end of March. A few WashPo articles claim that Congress passed another continuing resolution that carries us forward to September. Fox News said (once) that the continuing resolution includes the famous "sequester" budget cuts. Let's hope so.
September will be here, real soon, and they will have to pass yet another continuing resolution. "Cuts" only take effect if they get included in the continuing resolution.
The budget story, while entertaining, isn't all that important. A budget just expresses hopes. Budgets do NOT allocate money, authorize spending, authorize programs or hiring or retention of federal employees. The budget just says "We want spending to be so much, taxes to be hiked so much, and we will only run a deficit so big." Worthy thoughts, but of no real effect.
Taxes will be what they were last year unless Obama musters enough votes for a tax hike. Spending on "entitlements" (Medicare, Medicaid, social security, pensions,and some other stuff) will be what it will be. Social Security will write checks to all those eligible, Medicare and Medicare will cover the medical bills of all those who go to their doctors, pensions will get paid. This happens automatically, or at least til the money runs out. The rest of federal spending is "discretionary" meaning Congress must pass a law authorizing the spending of tax payer money. Discretionary is Defense, Justice, State, HUD, Homeland Security, Energy, EPA, Agriculture, FAA, FCC, Highway Trust Fund, and a bunch more.
In the old days, Congress would pass a separate law (appropriation bill) for each discretionary organization. This process was bogging down even back in the 1960's. Appropriations bills were always late. USAF in those days never knew what it could spend until the very last day of the fiscal year. Each year the start of the new fiscal year was rolled back a month to give Congress more time to wrangle over appropriation bills. Eventually Congress got so late that they skipped an entire fiscal year.
It got so bad that the new fiscal year would start but Congress hadn't passed any appropriation bills at all. In order to prevent a total shutdown, Congress passed a "Continuing Resolution" that year which said "All you agencies can spend what you spent last year, with a few little changes here and there. "
Continuing Resolutions have the advantage of being filibuster proof. While hard core senators could hold up appropriations for this department or that department, they never had the stones to hold up the entire federal government. And, it's very difficult to figure out just how much money is going where. You have to know what the appropriations were when the last appropriations bill was passed, (ancient history) and work in all the ups and downs from all the subsequent continuing resolutions. Doing this is a life's work. Congressmen just vote to pass the thing. They don't really know where the money is going.
Anyhow, the last continuing resolution expires at the end of March. A few WashPo articles claim that Congress passed another continuing resolution that carries us forward to September. Fox News said (once) that the continuing resolution includes the famous "sequester" budget cuts. Let's hope so.
September will be here, real soon, and they will have to pass yet another continuing resolution. "Cuts" only take effect if they get included in the continuing resolution.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Pope Francis, I wish him well
I will admit that I never heard of him before they made him pope. I wish him, and the Catholic Church, and the whole of Christendom well. We all need it.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Cannon Mt. Ski Weather
We got another inch of powder last night and it stayed cold. What with the 6 inches we got yesterday and this dusting we are in good shape.
Whither the aircraft carrier?
Wired had a piece here. It make some good points. The United States (richest nation on earth) can only afford 10 or 11 full sized carriers. Should enemy subs or missiles or mines or land based aircraft get lucky, then the US is out of seapower for all the years it takes to build new carriers. There is much to be said for cheaper vessels, of which we can afford lots of.
The Wired writer doesn't understand a number of things. Steam catapults need a steam power plant to furnish the necessary steam. It takes a lot of steam to hurl a 20 ton loaded aircraft fast enough to make it fly. Smaller lower cost ships tend to have gas turbines or even diesels rather than expensive steam plants. A low cost carrier cannot have a steam catapult and remain low cost.
In addition to the catapult, aircraft carriers must steam at full speed into the wind when launching aircraft to generate enough wind over the deck to get heavily loaded aircraft into the air. The big carriers can all do better than 30 knots which takes a huge engine plant. Again, a low cost carrier (they called them escort carriers in WWII) cannot have that kind of engines and remain low cost.
So, the low cost carrier cannot support the high performance jet fighters needed to keep enemy aircraft away. They will be limited to helicopters, jump jets, and some yet-to-be built propeller aircraft. They will depend upon land based air or full sized carriers, or missiles for protection against enemy air attack. Still, such a ship can be very useful. In fact the Navy has built a number of them, they are called helicopter carriers.
One other thing the Wired writer doesn't understand. Subs, especially nuclear subs, are terribly expensive. A sub costs five to ten times what a surface vessel costs. Building subs just to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles is expensive. The US Navy only has such subs because it found itself with a bunch of big ballistic missile subs left over from the Cold War. They weren't needed anymore to deter the Soviets, they were too new and too expensive to just scrap, so they loaded them up with Tomahawks. They did this because they had the subs, all built and paid for, not because it was economical. In fact, Tomahawk missiles cost $1 million apiece, there are few targets out there worth $1 million.
The Wired writer doesn't understand a number of things. Steam catapults need a steam power plant to furnish the necessary steam. It takes a lot of steam to hurl a 20 ton loaded aircraft fast enough to make it fly. Smaller lower cost ships tend to have gas turbines or even diesels rather than expensive steam plants. A low cost carrier cannot have a steam catapult and remain low cost.
In addition to the catapult, aircraft carriers must steam at full speed into the wind when launching aircraft to generate enough wind over the deck to get heavily loaded aircraft into the air. The big carriers can all do better than 30 knots which takes a huge engine plant. Again, a low cost carrier (they called them escort carriers in WWII) cannot have that kind of engines and remain low cost.
So, the low cost carrier cannot support the high performance jet fighters needed to keep enemy aircraft away. They will be limited to helicopters, jump jets, and some yet-to-be built propeller aircraft. They will depend upon land based air or full sized carriers, or missiles for protection against enemy air attack. Still, such a ship can be very useful. In fact the Navy has built a number of them, they are called helicopter carriers.
One other thing the Wired writer doesn't understand. Subs, especially nuclear subs, are terribly expensive. A sub costs five to ten times what a surface vessel costs. Building subs just to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles is expensive. The US Navy only has such subs because it found itself with a bunch of big ballistic missile subs left over from the Cold War. They weren't needed anymore to deter the Soviets, they were too new and too expensive to just scrap, so they loaded them up with Tomahawks. They did this because they had the subs, all built and paid for, not because it was economical. In fact, Tomahawk missiles cost $1 million apiece, there are few targets out there worth $1 million.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Old Winter Driving Trick
Which seems to be forgotten these days.
In winter, always BACK into the driveway.
Why you ask?
Simple, when it snows and you get plowed in, your odds of ramming out thru the snowdrift are much better going forward as opposed to backing up.
Secondary reason. Should your car fail to start, and need a jump start, it's a whole bunch easier then the hood is on the street side.
In winter, always BACK into the driveway.
Why you ask?
Simple, when it snows and you get plowed in, your odds of ramming out thru the snowdrift are much better going forward as opposed to backing up.
Secondary reason. Should your car fail to start, and need a jump start, it's a whole bunch easier then the hood is on the street side.
First we had the electric wheelchairs
You must have seen the TV ads showing a happy grandmother whirring around the kitchen, while the voiceover claims the "Medicare and your insurance will pay for this goodie".
Now we have electric breast milk pumps. Obamacare, that all purpose tax hike/medical insurance/death panel law requires health insurers support breast feeding. Which means supplying breast milk pumps for free to nursing mothers.
Now, someone has invented an electric breast milk pump. The simple $35 all plastic manual type, is no longer good enough. Obamacare will pay for the $300 electric models.
Helping to push health care costs ever higher.
Ex wife breast fed all three of our children using the manual model. If she could do it, so can anyone else.
Now we have electric breast milk pumps. Obamacare, that all purpose tax hike/medical insurance/death panel law requires health insurers support breast feeding. Which means supplying breast milk pumps for free to nursing mothers.
Now, someone has invented an electric breast milk pump. The simple $35 all plastic manual type, is no longer good enough. Obamacare will pay for the $300 electric models.
Helping to push health care costs ever higher.
Ex wife breast fed all three of our children using the manual model. If she could do it, so can anyone else.
Cannon Mt Ski Weather
It started snowing yesterday afternoon and kept at it all night. We got a good six inches of nice light powder. It stayed cold, it's 25 right now. Skiing is excellent and barring a rainstorm, oughta stay that way for the weekend.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
NHPR celebrates 10th anniversery of Iraq War
Perhaps celebrate is too strong. They ran pieces about how tough women soldiers had it on deployment, especially the single mothers. Heartbreaking story about heartless teen age kids giving Mom a hard time over her deployment. Followed up with other stories explaining why we should not have gone to Iraq and how little the war achieved. Good heartwarming stuff, just what I like to hear in the morning. Thanks NHPR.
Monday, March 18, 2013
787 versus lithium batteries
Boeing has submitted paperwork for a fix to FAA. They are improving the battery assembly and enclosing the battery assembly inside a fireproof battery box with over board vents, so that should the "improved" battery catch fire again the fire will be contained inside the battery box and the smoke vented overboard.
The "improved" battery is only medium convincing. This is a replaceable cell battery. Eight separate cells, each yielding a little less than four volts are packed inside a metal box. Wired in series this gives a 28 volt battery, the standard aircraft battery voltage for the last 70 years or more. There is a battery monitor, an electronic black box that checks each cell, jumper straps to tie the cells together in series, a wiring harness for the battery monitor. Changes involve wrapping each cell in tape, lock washers on the terminal straps, more shrink tubing to insulate the wiring harness. The battery monitor will be reprogrammed to alarm more readily. These are quality control measures that are a good idea in general, but don't sound like a real fix. The real problem is that for some reason battery cells now and then decide to catch fire. Once a single cell catches fire, it will light off its neighbor cells since they are all packed cheek by jowl inside the battery assembly.
In going over all the paperwork generated, it was revealed that Securiplane, the maker of the 787 battery charger, never tested their charger on a real battery. Due to a previous battery fire in their lab, they decided testing with real batteries was too dangerous. All testing of the charger circuitry was done on simulated batteries instead of the real thing. That's surprising. Anyone with real flight line experience will tell you that simulators are never exactly like the real thing.
The "improved" battery is only medium convincing. This is a replaceable cell battery. Eight separate cells, each yielding a little less than four volts are packed inside a metal box. Wired in series this gives a 28 volt battery, the standard aircraft battery voltage for the last 70 years or more. There is a battery monitor, an electronic black box that checks each cell, jumper straps to tie the cells together in series, a wiring harness for the battery monitor. Changes involve wrapping each cell in tape, lock washers on the terminal straps, more shrink tubing to insulate the wiring harness. The battery monitor will be reprogrammed to alarm more readily. These are quality control measures that are a good idea in general, but don't sound like a real fix. The real problem is that for some reason battery cells now and then decide to catch fire. Once a single cell catches fire, it will light off its neighbor cells since they are all packed cheek by jowl inside the battery assembly.
In going over all the paperwork generated, it was revealed that Securiplane, the maker of the 787 battery charger, never tested their charger on a real battery. Due to a previous battery fire in their lab, they decided testing with real batteries was too dangerous. All testing of the charger circuitry was done on simulated batteries instead of the real thing. That's surprising. Anyone with real flight line experience will tell you that simulators are never exactly like the real thing.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Cruises from Hell
Been a lot of stories of cruise ship breakdowns. Carnivale Cruise lines makes the news most often. The worst was one ship that lost all engine power at sea. They had to get towed back to port. With no electric power, the galley was in trouble, no refrigerators, no stoves. Cuisine suffered, passengers were fed on MRE's. Running water stopped running and toilets stopped flushing. No one was hurt, but that was pure luck. Passengers and TV news told horror stories for days. There have been several others resulting in cruises cut short.
A ship without engine power full of passengers is a disaster waiting to happen. A little bad weather and a powerless ship will sink. The weather in the Caribbean isn't as nasty as the North Atlantic, but, they do get hurricanes from time to time. In the interests of passenger safety we need to insist on cruise ships that never loose power at sea.
The real problem is unseaworthy cruise ships. Any ship of that size ought to have twin screws, twin engines, twin engine rooms so that if one breaks the other keeps the ship moving and the electricity flowing. Everything ought to be duplicate and redundant. Engine rooms ought to have sprinklers in case of fire. No single failure should disable the ship. There are insurance company and government regulations on ship construction. Are these regulations stiff enough? And do they apply to cruise ships registered in Panama or other third world sinkholes? Building ships right costs more than just slapping them together any old which way. Cruise lines are competitive. They have an obligation to their stock holders to make a profit. They will take short cuts compromising passenger safety unless there are regulations and inspectors enforcing those regulations.
We had senator Chuckie the Schumer on TV calling for a "passenger bill of rights". Such as the right to a refund, and the right to have the toilets flush. A lawyer's solution to everything. That isn't the problem.
A ship without engine power full of passengers is a disaster waiting to happen. A little bad weather and a powerless ship will sink. The weather in the Caribbean isn't as nasty as the North Atlantic, but, they do get hurricanes from time to time. In the interests of passenger safety we need to insist on cruise ships that never loose power at sea.
The real problem is unseaworthy cruise ships. Any ship of that size ought to have twin screws, twin engines, twin engine rooms so that if one breaks the other keeps the ship moving and the electricity flowing. Everything ought to be duplicate and redundant. Engine rooms ought to have sprinklers in case of fire. No single failure should disable the ship. There are insurance company and government regulations on ship construction. Are these regulations stiff enough? And do they apply to cruise ships registered in Panama or other third world sinkholes? Building ships right costs more than just slapping them together any old which way. Cruise lines are competitive. They have an obligation to their stock holders to make a profit. They will take short cuts compromising passenger safety unless there are regulations and inspectors enforcing those regulations.
We had senator Chuckie the Schumer on TV calling for a "passenger bill of rights". Such as the right to a refund, and the right to have the toilets flush. A lawyer's solution to everything. That isn't the problem.
Why do I still watch Meet the Press?
Can't be 'cause I want to find out what's going on. This morning we had democrat Charles Van Hoolen claim that Obama had made $1.5 trillion in cuts. In actual fact, Obama is going to spend more this year than he did last year, even after the "drastic" sequester. You cannot claim a cut when spending goes up. Chalk up Mr. Van Hoolen as another democrat who doesn't tell the truth. Oh well, last week democrat Kasini Reed claimed $2.5 trillion in cuts. So this week they cut their cuts by a cool $1 trillion.
Then we had moderator David Gregory talk about an acceptable ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes. Right now that ratio is $600 billion to zero. And we all remember what divide by zero yields.
Switch subjects to gay marriage (important topic) . We find out that it's now called "marriage equality" 'cause that sounds better than "gay marriage".
Chris Matthews goes off on a rant about the necessity to think of gay marriage as a right. Chris omits mentioning the "right" of gay marriage ought to be decided the same way every thing else in a democracy is decided, by the ballot box. Gay marriage becomes a right when there are enough votes to pass it into law. If you don't have the votes, it ain't a right.
Then we had moderator David Gregory talk about an acceptable ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes. Right now that ratio is $600 billion to zero. And we all remember what divide by zero yields.
Switch subjects to gay marriage (important topic) . We find out that it's now called "marriage equality" 'cause that sounds better than "gay marriage".
Chris Matthews goes off on a rant about the necessity to think of gay marriage as a right. Chris omits mentioning the "right" of gay marriage ought to be decided the same way every thing else in a democracy is decided, by the ballot box. Gay marriage becomes a right when there are enough votes to pass it into law. If you don't have the votes, it ain't a right.
Labels:
Charles Van Hoolen,
Chris Matthews,
David Gregory,
Kasini Reed
Friday, March 15, 2013
It's difficult to be Republican these days.
The hard part is creating a party platform that will attract voters. After the disaster of Nov 2012, Republicans have been doing a lot of soul searching. Practicing Republicans (selectmen, school board, State reps, party officials, party workers) want the party to stand for jobs, tax cuts, spending cuts, and improving the economy. They don't want to get mixed up in the wedge issues (abortion, contraception and gay marriage), cause they know these issues are losers. They drive away more young voters, than the elderly voters they appeal too. If the practical Republicans had their druthers, no Republican would ever mention a wedge issue, especially in primary elections.
Trouble is the abortion issue is huge and it really motivates a lot of voters. Used to be the country was split 50-50 on it. Recent polling suggests that the pro abortion sentiment is now ahead maybe 55 to 45 percent. That's huge. Means every time the issue comes up, Republicans loose by 10 percent. In American elections 10 percent is a landslide.
Guess which party the 45 percent anti abortion voters join? I'll give you a clue, it ain't the democrats.
So here we are with a load of gung ho anti abortion voters in the party. It's a democratic party, we cannot kick them out or brainwash them. And they vote in primaries. So the Republicans have a LOT of wedge issue voters that won't go away. And Republican candidates have to come to the best terms they can make with them.
Trouble is the abortion issue is huge and it really motivates a lot of voters. Used to be the country was split 50-50 on it. Recent polling suggests that the pro abortion sentiment is now ahead maybe 55 to 45 percent. That's huge. Means every time the issue comes up, Republicans loose by 10 percent. In American elections 10 percent is a landslide.
Guess which party the 45 percent anti abortion voters join? I'll give you a clue, it ain't the democrats.
So here we are with a load of gung ho anti abortion voters in the party. It's a democratic party, we cannot kick them out or brainwash them. And they vote in primaries. So the Republicans have a LOT of wedge issue voters that won't go away. And Republican candidates have to come to the best terms they can make with them.
Ford needs a better ad man
It's a maximally ineffective TV car ad. It starts off with an animated cartoon of a SUV. As the voice over explains that the SUV is too small to hold all the passengers. The cartoon car shows bulges all of a sudden. Then they melt down the cartoon car and redraw it. A happy voice over now explains how everyone fits inside, now. That uses up half the ad time.
Then we finally get to see a photo of the car they are trying to sell. It bursts thru a big sheet of wallpaper. The car is not on screen long enough to really see it. It's painted mud color. It has an odd name "C-Max" which is never spelled out on screen. It has three grownups squeezed into the back seat looking squashed which kinda negates the point the cartoons tried to make. Price is not given.
That ad ain't gonna sell cars.
To sell a car on TV you want to show the car,.early and all the way thru. You want to show the car name prominently and early, 'cause cars all look alike these days. Give the car a real pronounceable name rather than random strings of letters and numbers.Show people doing fun things in the car at interesting places. For instance parked at a beach with surfboards on the roof. Or with skis on the roof at a ski resort. Or towing a boat trailer to a fishing spot. Or beside a tent at a scenic campground. And paint the car a real color, not mud.
Then we finally get to see a photo of the car they are trying to sell. It bursts thru a big sheet of wallpaper. The car is not on screen long enough to really see it. It's painted mud color. It has an odd name "C-Max" which is never spelled out on screen. It has three grownups squeezed into the back seat looking squashed which kinda negates the point the cartoons tried to make. Price is not given.
That ad ain't gonna sell cars.
To sell a car on TV you want to show the car,.early and all the way thru. You want to show the car name prominently and early, 'cause cars all look alike these days. Give the car a real pronounceable name rather than random strings of letters and numbers.Show people doing fun things in the car at interesting places. For instance parked at a beach with surfboards on the roof. Or with skis on the roof at a ski resort. Or towing a boat trailer to a fishing spot. Or beside a tent at a scenic campground. And paint the car a real color, not mud.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Facebook Privacy Probably does not exist
Monday's
Wall St Journal had a piece headlined "Guide to Facebook's Privacy
Options. I just spent half an hour checking my options. It's
complicated and many options are so deeply hidden you are unlikely to
find them without a road map. I think the wise facebooker considers all
facebook posts public and refrains from posting anything embarrassing
or that might turn off a future employer.
A Sweet Deal
The US Department of Agriculture is planning to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to prop up sugar prices. That's $168 million worth of sugar, at the March price of 21.03 cents a pound. Where is that sequester when you need it?
According to the Wall St Journal, USDA is motivated by a desire to prevent bankruptcy among sugar producers who have borrowed $862 million from USDA this growing season. If the producers go broke, Uncle doesn't get paid back, at least not in dollars. Apparently the sugar borrowers pledge their crops as security for the loans. If they don't have money, they give the sugar to Uncle Sam instead of dollars. Last time this happened, 2000, Uncle wound up the proud owner of one million tons of sugar. At least sugar isn't perishable, that gives bureaucrats some years to figure out how to get rid of it. The 2008 farm bill calls for this sugar to be made into ethanol and added to gasoline.
In addition to cheap loans and price supports, the sugar industry gets tariff protection. World sugar prices are only 18 cents a pound, compared with 21 cents a pound inside the US. The National Confectioners Association, big sugar consumers, claim the sugar producers have cost US consumers $14 billion in higher sugar prices since the 2008 farm bill passed.
One bright spot. Our democratic senator, Jeanne Shaheen calls this swindle "unacceptable" and is sponsoring a bill to "give the USDA more flexibility in handling the sugar program". More flexibility my foot, she ought to sponsor a bill to shut this scam down completely.
According to the Wall St Journal, USDA is motivated by a desire to prevent bankruptcy among sugar producers who have borrowed $862 million from USDA this growing season. If the producers go broke, Uncle doesn't get paid back, at least not in dollars. Apparently the sugar borrowers pledge their crops as security for the loans. If they don't have money, they give the sugar to Uncle Sam instead of dollars. Last time this happened, 2000, Uncle wound up the proud owner of one million tons of sugar. At least sugar isn't perishable, that gives bureaucrats some years to figure out how to get rid of it. The 2008 farm bill calls for this sugar to be made into ethanol and added to gasoline.
In addition to cheap loans and price supports, the sugar industry gets tariff protection. World sugar prices are only 18 cents a pound, compared with 21 cents a pound inside the US. The National Confectioners Association, big sugar consumers, claim the sugar producers have cost US consumers $14 billion in higher sugar prices since the 2008 farm bill passed.
One bright spot. Our democratic senator, Jeanne Shaheen calls this swindle "unacceptable" and is sponsoring a bill to "give the USDA more flexibility in handling the sugar program". More flexibility my foot, she ought to sponsor a bill to shut this scam down completely.
Labels:
Jeanne Shaheen,
sugar subsidy,
sugar tariff,
US sugar policy
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
World's most famous stove pipe comes out of storage
The Vatican's chimney, the one that puffs white smoke or black smoke to signal election or non election of a new pope was on TV the other day. Vatican workers were shown installing it in the roof of the Sistine Chapel. Damn. You would think that the world famous chimney would be solid masonry, there all the time, not a piece of stove pipe kept in some storage place except for papal elections. If for no other reason, Vatican tout guides would love to be able to point out the famous chimney to tourists.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
There oughta be law
Against telemarketers who ring your phone and then fail to answer when you pick up. Penalties might include boiling in oil, keel hauling, and hanging from the nearest phone pole.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Green Eggs and Ham, #1 in hard cover fiction
It's been a week and Dr, Suess still dominates the Wall St Journal best sellers list. Of the 10 entries in hard cover fiction, 6 of them are Dr. Suess. Green Eggs and Ham is now the number 1 best seller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)