What did China do to the NewsHour?

Dunno. But the Newshour with Jim Lehrer has been bashing the Chinese every night. Stories about Beijing smog, lack of greenness, suppression of dissidents, freedom for Tibet, earthquake crushed schools, hit the show every night this week. Not that a little China bashing is bad mind you, there are plenty of things not to like in China. But after the tender concern the liberal media used shower upon Soviet Russia, Castro's Cuba, the North Vietnamese, and other wretched regimes, you'd think they'd cut the Chinese a little slack.
I have a bit of sympathy for the Chinese. They are so proud of pulling their country up from third world toilet status into the big leagues, becoming an important world power. They are trying so hard to pull off the greatest publicity stunt/national celebration/Olympic games. And here we have the Americans raining on their parade, every night.

So did Dr. Ivins really send the anthrax letters?

The FBI thinks the late Dr. Ivins is the anthrax killer. They seem to base their suspicions on a genetic match between anthrax in the deadly letters and anthrax in a jar in Dr. Ivins laboratory. Ivins, was a civilian scientist working for the Army on anthrax and anthrax vaccines, so having a jar of anthrax in the lab is to be expected. But I thought anthrax was anthrax, just like the common cold is the common cold. Does each germ bear a unique genetic fingerprint that makes each one different? Or in actual fact, does every anthrax sample in the world match up genetically? Does anyone really know?
Given the FBI's terrible track record (the Richard Jewell case, the Waco case, the Wen Ho Lee case, the total failure to forestall 9/11) and the ambiguity of the genetic evidence, I remain skeptical.

On the need for a USAF requirements writing office

Long article in Aviation Week bemoaning various recent Air Force project disasters such as the tanker mess, a troubled recon satellite program, a follow on UAV program, and pontificating upon a fix. The author blames bad specification writing, in particular bad requirements specification writing as the cause, and calls for a special corps of requirement spec writers as the fix.
Do I believe that a bunch of well trained paper pushers can solve all the problems of military procurement? No. However better requirements would certainly help.
Back in ancient history, the F105 and F106 fighters from the Viet Nam era, maintainance of which was my duty in those days, we had a pair of hot fighters loaded with fancy gadgets that never worked or were never used. The F106 flew with the Tactical Situation Display inop, the retractable beacon lights fully extended, and the doppler mode of the radar inop. The F105 never put bomb one into it's fancy internal bomb bay, the doppler navigator and the UHF radio were so flaky the planes flew in groups of four, hoping that ONE doppler and ONE UHF would be working upon return.
These "issues" (down right failures actually) started at the requirements spec level. Nice to have, but troublesome and non essential requirements, burdened the aircraft with gear that took up space and weight but didn't work. The space and weight would have been better dedicated to carrying more fuel and armament. Had the requirements spec been trimmed of excess fat before going into production, considerable taxpayer expense would have been saved.
So the issue of proper requirements is a real one. If we speced it right, a lot of time, money and aggravation would be saved. When we spec it wrong, or fail to spec it at all, trouble insues.
The best requirements spec writers are experienced operators. Want a good requirements spec for an aircraft or a tank or even a jeep? Get the users together and let them write the spec. You might need a secretary from the bureaucracy to clean up the language, but the users know what's essential and what's a frill. Specially trained requirements spec writers won't.

Outrageous Patent granted to IBM

Slashdot reports that IBM was granted a US patent for cash register software that remembers "paper or plastic" for each customer, relieving the clerk of the onerous task of asking. This trivial and obvious idea is worthy of patent protection? Can you say "patent troll"? Can you say "welfare for patent lawyers"? Can you say "Patent examiner with the IQ of an Ipswich clam"?

Do you believe in the market or in CAFE?

With fanfare and political posturing the Congress jacked up the mandatory fuel economy from 25 mpg to 35 mpg just this year. Despite wailing and gnashing of teeth from the auto industry, it is perfectly possible to build 35 mpg cars today. In fact, you can buy an Aveo, a Yaris, or a Prius today and obtain 35 mpg or better. In a 35 mpg only world, you are limited to tiny econoboxes or pricey hybrids.
Automobile technology has been pretty well worked out since Henry Ford's time, and there is only so much you can do with it. After 100 years, the technological avenues are worked out and well known. The only way to get 35 mpg is build a very small light car (Aveo & Yaris), or install dual propulsion machinery, gasoline engine and battery electric, (Prius) which doubles the cost. Or do like the Europeans, soften the emissions requirements to permit diesel cars. The diesel Rabbit did 40 mpg back in the 1970's.
Of course, if you want a bigger vehicle to bring the kids along, bring sheet goods home from the lumberyard, or furniture back from the auction, you are out of luck.
Market demand causes the car makers to build everything from tiny econoboxes to Hummers, giving citizens the right to buy what they want. 35 mpg CAFE standards pretty much outlaw anything bigger than econoboxes. Me, I'd rather live in a country that allowed citizens to spend their money the way they like.

Where does all the oil go?

I totaled up my personal oil consumption, furnace oil and gasoline. Last winter the furnace used 616 gallons, and the car took 370. Call it a thousand gallons for the year in round numbers. Call it three gallons a day, again round numbers. For a ball park estimate make the average family size three, divide the population of the country by three and get 100 million families, using three gallons a day,or 300 million gallons a day. Divide by 55 to make it barrels and get 5.4 million barrels a day for consumer use. Actual US crude oil consumption is far higher than that, 20 million barrels a day.
That makes 14.6 million barrels a day going into industry. I wonder where it all goes and how much is necessary. Can we find ways to economize in industry?
For instance, A TV ad this morning claims 60 billion pounds of plastic bottles are made each year. Convert that to barrels per day assuming 7.5 pounds per gallon. I get 400,000 barrels per day. That's 2% of daily oil consumption going into plastic bottles. Suppose we went back to real glass bottles, the kind you return, wash and refill?
Where does the 14.6 million barrels per day industrial use really go? Can it be reduced?

Why CAN'T we drill our way out of the oil shortage?

The democrats and Obama keep saying it. "We can't drill our way out of it". Why not? Estimates of the size of oil reserves in US territory start around 20 billion barrels and go up to 83 billion. There is every reason to believe that more will be found as we drill. The country only uses 20 million barrels a day. That's enough oil to fill ALL our usage for 3 to 11 years, going from today's figures. When drilling finds more reserves, which it always does, then we get even more time.
Granted, 3 to 11 years isn't for ever, but it's a long time, long enough to do a lot of things.
Up here we can't run the furnace on alternative energy and we can't drive to work on it either.