According to the Wall St Journal, Justice Dept. lawyers are deciding whether to bring charges of violating the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act against Scott Roeder. State officials have already brought charges of first degree murder against Scott Roeder for the shooting of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, killed while attending church on Sunday.
First degree murder is what was done, the penalties for same are very stiff. Why are we messing around bringing obscure charges under a forgotten act of Congress when plain first degree murder charges are highly appropriate?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
What does GM do with Bailout Money?
Lends it to private equity firms? My tax money, given to GM so they can lend it to someone else?
According to the Wall St Journal, GM is going to lend $2.5 billion dollars to Platinum Equity so it can buy bankrupt parts supplier Delphi. Platinum Equity only puts up $750 million of its own money, with us taxpayers, thru GM, supplying the rest???
Delphi is an important supplier to GM, and probably needs to stay afloat in order for GM to keep making cars.
But why offer a slice to this Platinum Equity run by Tom Gores? Why does Platinum have to come to GM for money as opposed to borrowing for a bank? Could Delphi be such a disaster that no bank will touch it with a ten foot pole? In which case, our tax money should not be poured down a drain.
If there is any chance of Delphi becoming profitable why does not GM buy the place outright. Why let this Platinum Equity profit at all. Buy it outright and keep any future profits.
Delphi is a UAW company, and used to be owned by GM. GM spun the thing off years ago, thinking to unload union health care and retirement liabilities. The newly independant Delphi never managed to get it's labor costs down enough to stay in business. It's been in bankruptcy for the last four years, hobbling along on loans from GM. Now that GM is flush with taxpayer bailout money it's doing something to keep Delphi going. But why cut this Platinum Equity into the deal? Platinum isn't bringing any money to the table.
How much money did Platinum or it's owner Tom Gores contribute to the Obama campaign?
According to the Wall St Journal, GM is going to lend $2.5 billion dollars to Platinum Equity so it can buy bankrupt parts supplier Delphi. Platinum Equity only puts up $750 million of its own money, with us taxpayers, thru GM, supplying the rest???
Delphi is an important supplier to GM, and probably needs to stay afloat in order for GM to keep making cars.
But why offer a slice to this Platinum Equity run by Tom Gores? Why does Platinum have to come to GM for money as opposed to borrowing for a bank? Could Delphi be such a disaster that no bank will touch it with a ten foot pole? In which case, our tax money should not be poured down a drain.
If there is any chance of Delphi becoming profitable why does not GM buy the place outright. Why let this Platinum Equity profit at all. Buy it outright and keep any future profits.
Delphi is a UAW company, and used to be owned by GM. GM spun the thing off years ago, thinking to unload union health care and retirement liabilities. The newly independant Delphi never managed to get it's labor costs down enough to stay in business. It's been in bankruptcy for the last four years, hobbling along on loans from GM. Now that GM is flush with taxpayer bailout money it's doing something to keep Delphi going. But why cut this Platinum Equity into the deal? Platinum isn't bringing any money to the table.
How much money did Platinum or it's owner Tom Gores contribute to the Obama campaign?
Nuclear Cluelessness
The TV announced the discovery of "Manmade Uranium" in the rubble of the Syrian reactor site bombed out by the Israeli Air Force three years ago. Clueless.
There are man made elements, but uranium isn't one of them. What the clueless newsie probably meant is enriched uranium. Natural uranium is mostly isotope U238 which is too stable to fission and be useful in power reactors or bombs. Only a tiny percentage (0.07%) of natural uranium is the fissionable isotope U235. It is possible to concentrate (enrich) uranium in the the fissionable U-235 isotope. Power reactors commonly run on uranium enriched to a few percent of U235. Nuclear weapons require enrichment to 90% and above. Uranium enriched to 90% or more is commonly called "weapons grade". The newsie didn't say if the enrichment was just a few percent or or weapons grade.
Enrichment to weapons grade is the hard part of making a uranium fission bomb.
Morale to the story. If its even slightly technical, expect the newsies to get it wrong.
There are man made elements, but uranium isn't one of them. What the clueless newsie probably meant is enriched uranium. Natural uranium is mostly isotope U238 which is too stable to fission and be useful in power reactors or bombs. Only a tiny percentage (0.07%) of natural uranium is the fissionable isotope U235. It is possible to concentrate (enrich) uranium in the the fissionable U-235 isotope. Power reactors commonly run on uranium enriched to a few percent of U235. Nuclear weapons require enrichment to 90% and above. Uranium enriched to 90% or more is commonly called "weapons grade". The newsie didn't say if the enrichment was just a few percent or or weapons grade.
Enrichment to weapons grade is the hard part of making a uranium fission bomb.
Morale to the story. If its even slightly technical, expect the newsies to get it wrong.
Testing, Testing from Aviation Week
"The nuclear test produced 'less than a 2-kiloton explosion,' says a Washington-based intelligence official. 'It was bigger than last time,but somewhat less than predicted.' perhaps only 10% of expectation. ... However it has yet to be determined if this was a uranium or plutonium device."
Translation. It was another fizzle. Twenty kilotons, the yield of the Hiroshima bomb, is always the design goal for beginner's nukes. Very few nukes less than 20 kilotons have ever been built, because it's hard to get them to go off. The only hard evidence is the 4.7 Richter scale reading for the current test, compared to 4.1 for the 2006 test which everyone agrees was a fizzle.
"I am fairly certain we will see much more interest in ballistic missile defense in Japan and South Korea," says Bernard Loo of the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
No kidding.
"For China, that could be one of the worst results of the test", says Loo. "Beijing does not want missile defense systems preliferating in its neighborhood since it maintains a nuclear arsenal the is modest by the standards of the US and Russia and would not bear significant attrition."
Maybe. Mr. Loo obviously thinks anti ballistic missile defenses are effective. I disagree, and I used to design the radar that guided the antimissiles. Plus, if the Chinese really didn't want the North Korean's to do nuclear tests, they could shut off the North Koreans supply of food and fuel. That would get their attention. In actual fact, the Chinese are happy to keep a thorn in the side of Americans in business.
"Gathering intelligence about North Korea is tough say the experts. Human intelligence sources are non existant, while rugged terrain, underground facilities and lack of overflight all conspire against observation. "
Again, maybe. Koreans all speak the same language, were colonized by the Japanese in the 1930's, and there are plenty of South Koreans with relatives in the North. You'd think an effective South Korean intelligence agency (KCIA they call it) would exploit these ties and have some sources in the North. KCIA is undoubtedly reluctant to share this with the Americans, given the Americans record of leaking top secret stuff to the New York Times.
Translation. It was another fizzle. Twenty kilotons, the yield of the Hiroshima bomb, is always the design goal for beginner's nukes. Very few nukes less than 20 kilotons have ever been built, because it's hard to get them to go off. The only hard evidence is the 4.7 Richter scale reading for the current test, compared to 4.1 for the 2006 test which everyone agrees was a fizzle.
"I am fairly certain we will see much more interest in ballistic missile defense in Japan and South Korea," says Bernard Loo of the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
No kidding.
"For China, that could be one of the worst results of the test", says Loo. "Beijing does not want missile defense systems preliferating in its neighborhood since it maintains a nuclear arsenal the is modest by the standards of the US and Russia and would not bear significant attrition."
Maybe. Mr. Loo obviously thinks anti ballistic missile defenses are effective. I disagree, and I used to design the radar that guided the antimissiles. Plus, if the Chinese really didn't want the North Korean's to do nuclear tests, they could shut off the North Koreans supply of food and fuel. That would get their attention. In actual fact, the Chinese are happy to keep a thorn in the side of Americans in business.
"Gathering intelligence about North Korea is tough say the experts. Human intelligence sources are non existant, while rugged terrain, underground facilities and lack of overflight all conspire against observation. "
Again, maybe. Koreans all speak the same language, were colonized by the Japanese in the 1930's, and there are plenty of South Koreans with relatives in the North. You'd think an effective South Korean intelligence agency (KCIA they call it) would exploit these ties and have some sources in the North. KCIA is undoubtedly reluctant to share this with the Americans, given the Americans record of leaking top secret stuff to the New York Times.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Thursday's junk mail
From Crosstown Chrysler Dodge Jeep, Rt 302 Littleton. Four color 16 page ad sheet, no addressee, they used some deal whereby the rural mail carrier dropped one in every mailbox. "We are here to Stay!" That's the closest they come to mentioning the great Chrysler dealer massacre of a couple of weeks ago. I didn't see their name on the list of dropped Chrysler dealers that went around the net a couple of weeks ago, so I guess they are still in business, and not a zombie dealer trying to dump inventory.
They have 17 different new 2009 model cars/trucks. Ten SUV's and pickup trucks, five small gas sipping econoboxes, and two minivans. They do list prices, a plus for a car ad sheet. They don't list EPA fuel mileage ratings. For econoboxes we have Caliber, Avenger, Journey, Sebring, and PT Cruiser. All with a 2.4 liter engine. Asking prices from $15,791 to $19402, which doesn't seem very cheap. Styling bland and instantly forgetable except or the PT Cruiser. The two minivans were priced at $19633 and $22,647. I bought three minvans over the years for $12500 on all three, so the the minivan pricing is no bargain. The big V8 crewcab pickup trucks go for $25,000.
Other interesting feature, they now offer to finance the car over 6 and half years. Wow. Used to be a three year car loan was standard. And they only want 7.95% APR.
Does not look like much of a change in car lineup or pricing even though we are deep into Great Depression II, gas is at $2.60 a gallon and climbing and Chrysler is in chapter 11 bankruptcy.
They have 17 different new 2009 model cars/trucks. Ten SUV's and pickup trucks, five small gas sipping econoboxes, and two minivans. They do list prices, a plus for a car ad sheet. They don't list EPA fuel mileage ratings. For econoboxes we have Caliber, Avenger, Journey, Sebring, and PT Cruiser. All with a 2.4 liter engine. Asking prices from $15,791 to $19402, which doesn't seem very cheap. Styling bland and instantly forgetable except or the PT Cruiser. The two minivans were priced at $19633 and $22,647. I bought three minvans over the years for $12500 on all three, so the the minivan pricing is no bargain. The big V8 crewcab pickup trucks go for $25,000.
Other interesting feature, they now offer to finance the car over 6 and half years. Wow. Used to be a three year car loan was standard. And they only want 7.95% APR.
Does not look like much of a change in car lineup or pricing even though we are deep into Great Depression II, gas is at $2.60 a gallon and climbing and Chrysler is in chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Z1485 IS Camera Battery
I bought a non Kodak rechargeable lithium battery and charger off the internet for about 1/2 the cost of the genuine Kodak article. The battery fits the camera, it's a clone of Kodak battery type KLIC8000. I was too cheap to buy a pair batteries to allow one in the camera and one recharging. The Chinese maker did not bother to place his name on either the battery or charger, so I can't recommend a maker to you.
Battery life is good, I haven't been able to discharge the battery so far as to cause the camera to stop working. So it's good for 20-30 shots for sure and probably a good deal more. Not wanting to run out of battery while out taking pictures, I pop the battery into the charger when I come home from picture taking.
The charger will allow you to put the battery in backwards. It doesn't harm anything, but the battery won't charge when backwards. The charger has a single LED that lights red when charging, yellow when partly charged and green when fully charged or the battery is in backwards. The camera has enough backup capacitor to hold the time and date settings long enough to swap the battery. To avoid having to reset time and date, I slip the original non rechargeable battery into the camera while the KLIC8000 battery is in the charger. The non rechargeable battery has discharged so much it won't work the camera, but apparently it has enough charge to hold the memory settings.
The NON rechargable battery has different contact arrangements from the rechargable battery. This feature insures that the charger won't try to charge NON rechargeable batteries. The users manual warns of dire concequences from charging NON rechargeable batteries. I don't know how true this is, but I wasn't planning on verifying the warning. Many years ago a buddy was recharging plain old fashioned flashlight batteries. Most of the time the batteries would accept a charge, but once a battery exploded in the charger. Made quite an impression on us, and the buddy acquired the nickname "Supergoose" from that incident.
Battery life is good, I haven't been able to discharge the battery so far as to cause the camera to stop working. So it's good for 20-30 shots for sure and probably a good deal more. Not wanting to run out of battery while out taking pictures, I pop the battery into the charger when I come home from picture taking.
The charger will allow you to put the battery in backwards. It doesn't harm anything, but the battery won't charge when backwards. The charger has a single LED that lights red when charging, yellow when partly charged and green when fully charged or the battery is in backwards. The camera has enough backup capacitor to hold the time and date settings long enough to swap the battery. To avoid having to reset time and date, I slip the original non rechargeable battery into the camera while the KLIC8000 battery is in the charger. The non rechargeable battery has discharged so much it won't work the camera, but apparently it has enough charge to hold the memory settings.
The NON rechargable battery has different contact arrangements from the rechargable battery. This feature insures that the charger won't try to charge NON rechargeable batteries. The users manual warns of dire concequences from charging NON rechargeable batteries. I don't know how true this is, but I wasn't planning on verifying the warning. Many years ago a buddy was recharging plain old fashioned flashlight batteries. Most of the time the batteries would accept a charge, but once a battery exploded in the charger. Made quite an impression on us, and the buddy acquired the nickname "Supergoose" from that incident.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Internet Car reviews
Back before internet, car reviews came in magazines, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Car & Driver. Since the magazines accepted a LOT of auto company advertising, the car reviews were always favorable. Didn't matter how wretched the car, the reviews made them sound wonderful. Never read a bad review.
Then there was Consumer Reports. It didn't accept advertising from anyone, and the editors hated cars. So the annual new car issue was depressing, it just listed warts. They used to invent warts just to avoid saying any thing nice about anything.
Now we have free internet reviewers. These guys have a new set of quirks. They are all car buffs and wannabee racers. Doesn't matter how much engine power the car has, they will tell you it needs more. Unless the transmission has 8 speeds forward it's obsolete. Interior must be trimmed in rare imported leather, hand carved mahogany, and engine turned stainless steel. Plastic is always bad mouthed as too shiny and too brittle. Cockpit design is derided as bland. Gigantic 25 inch diameter wheels are praised. They all love rear wheel drive.
Let's get back to the real world. More engine power costs you gas mileage. If you just want to get to work and not go drag racing, one horsepower per 35 pounds of car will get you there and get you back. One horsepower per 18 pounds of car is plenty lively enough for any kind of street driving, passing on two lane roads, and hill climbing at 100 mph. Four speeds in the transmission is plenty for engines of 4 liters (260 cubic inches) or larger. Manual transmission gives the best gas mileage and serves double duty as an anti theft device. Good automatic transmissions have a lockup clutch that eliminates slippage in the hydraulic torque converter. The lockup clutch will improve gas mileage by 2-3 mpg.
Interior trim is a matter of taste. Back in the 1950's Detroit interiors were bright with chrome, polished metal, fake wood strips, and two or three contrasting colors. In the 1960's the safety people came in and things were toned down. Reflective metal was banned because of blinding reflections in sunlight, and the eye catching trim went out. The result is a bland interior that doesn't distract the driver's eye from the road. As long as the interior looks well made so it won't come apart and look shabby, it's OK.
Big wheels smooth out the bumps but require more space inside the car to avoid the wheel hitting the inside of the fenders. Fourteen or fifteen inch wheels are plenty, the mega wheels popular now don't improve ride, handling, or tire wear.
Front wheel drive was cool back when it was new. In snow country it's the way to go. Front wheel drive gets rid of a space hogging drive shaft tunnel and transmission hump that used to eat up cockpit space.
Things the reviewers don't talk about. A good car has about the same weight on the front wheels as the back wheels. Fifty-fifty weight distribution it's called. The less the car weighs, the better the gas mileage. A hatchback with fold down rear seats lets you bring stuff back from the lumber yard.
You will save money if you buy a car you like. If you like it, you will keep it longer, which saves money. The virtuous car that you never liked, will encourage you to trade it on a new one sooner. Hybrid cars are so much more expensive than plain gasoline powered cars that the somewhat better gas mileage never pays for itself. You will sell the car before you break even.
Then there was Consumer Reports. It didn't accept advertising from anyone, and the editors hated cars. So the annual new car issue was depressing, it just listed warts. They used to invent warts just to avoid saying any thing nice about anything.
Now we have free internet reviewers. These guys have a new set of quirks. They are all car buffs and wannabee racers. Doesn't matter how much engine power the car has, they will tell you it needs more. Unless the transmission has 8 speeds forward it's obsolete. Interior must be trimmed in rare imported leather, hand carved mahogany, and engine turned stainless steel. Plastic is always bad mouthed as too shiny and too brittle. Cockpit design is derided as bland. Gigantic 25 inch diameter wheels are praised. They all love rear wheel drive.
Let's get back to the real world. More engine power costs you gas mileage. If you just want to get to work and not go drag racing, one horsepower per 35 pounds of car will get you there and get you back. One horsepower per 18 pounds of car is plenty lively enough for any kind of street driving, passing on two lane roads, and hill climbing at 100 mph. Four speeds in the transmission is plenty for engines of 4 liters (260 cubic inches) or larger. Manual transmission gives the best gas mileage and serves double duty as an anti theft device. Good automatic transmissions have a lockup clutch that eliminates slippage in the hydraulic torque converter. The lockup clutch will improve gas mileage by 2-3 mpg.
Interior trim is a matter of taste. Back in the 1950's Detroit interiors were bright with chrome, polished metal, fake wood strips, and two or three contrasting colors. In the 1960's the safety people came in and things were toned down. Reflective metal was banned because of blinding reflections in sunlight, and the eye catching trim went out. The result is a bland interior that doesn't distract the driver's eye from the road. As long as the interior looks well made so it won't come apart and look shabby, it's OK.
Big wheels smooth out the bumps but require more space inside the car to avoid the wheel hitting the inside of the fenders. Fourteen or fifteen inch wheels are plenty, the mega wheels popular now don't improve ride, handling, or tire wear.
Front wheel drive was cool back when it was new. In snow country it's the way to go. Front wheel drive gets rid of a space hogging drive shaft tunnel and transmission hump that used to eat up cockpit space.
Things the reviewers don't talk about. A good car has about the same weight on the front wheels as the back wheels. Fifty-fifty weight distribution it's called. The less the car weighs, the better the gas mileage. A hatchback with fold down rear seats lets you bring stuff back from the lumber yard.
You will save money if you buy a car you like. If you like it, you will keep it longer, which saves money. The virtuous car that you never liked, will encourage you to trade it on a new one sooner. Hybrid cars are so much more expensive than plain gasoline powered cars that the somewhat better gas mileage never pays for itself. You will sell the car before you break even.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)