Short article here. Trouble is, before I believe that, I have to see a graph of temperature or rainfall or something that varies with an 11 year period. Lacking such a graph, I don't believe it.
Sunspots have been known for better than 400 years. They do have a strong effect on radio propagation, something well known to any ham radio operator. Long distance, or over-the-horizon, radio communication is much easier at sunspot maximum.
Somehow it is hard to believe that only now, in heat of the global warming crisis, that suddenly a correlation between weather and sunspot activity is discovered.
If the very small variations in solar heat caused by sunspots makes a difference then global warming can be linked to longer term variations in solar heat. Satellite observations of solar activity only go back 30-40 years. The satellites all show the sunspot cycle clearly, but the long term trend is unreadable. Each new satellite launched (and there have been a dozen) reads the solar activity a little bit different from its predecessor, due to tiny variations in instrument calibration. After this effect has been corrected, the long term trend is read as nothing by some, and as improper corrections by others.
The referenced article contains no data at all. The scientific articles linked to are all "pay-per-view". Being a cheapskate, I'll try and find something on the net that is free before putting up real money to satisfy my curiosity.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Is Obama prosecuting CIA to take heat off Healthcare?
The Obama administration has decided to prosecute CIA people for harsh interrogation of Al Quada prisoners. You have to wonder why. Only the deepest lefties care much. Ordinary Americans are all in favor of squeezing intelligence out of Al Quada people by any means at all. People who blow up skyscrapers full of US citizens don't get much sympathy.
Prosecuting CIA people will render CIA even less effective than it has been. With the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over then, CIA agents are less likely to press hard, or take risks. Conservatives are unhappy about the national security risks incurred by weakening CIA.
All and all the issue seems like a loser for the Obama administration. So why are they doing it?
Could it be that they want to divert attention from the health care issue which doesn't seem to be going their way? Perhaps they fear they will lose on health care and are looking for something else to put on the front pages? Seems like a dumb idea to me, but with Obama you never know.
Some have suggested prosecuting CIA people is a way to get at Dick Cheney. That seems like a stretch to me. Cheney was vice president, not CIA director. Plus, how many real people really care about getting revenge on Dick Cheney? Especially now, when he is out of office?
Prosecuting CIA people will render CIA even less effective than it has been. With the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over then, CIA agents are less likely to press hard, or take risks. Conservatives are unhappy about the national security risks incurred by weakening CIA.
All and all the issue seems like a loser for the Obama administration. So why are they doing it?
Could it be that they want to divert attention from the health care issue which doesn't seem to be going their way? Perhaps they fear they will lose on health care and are looking for something else to put on the front pages? Seems like a dumb idea to me, but with Obama you never know.
Some have suggested prosecuting CIA people is a way to get at Dick Cheney. That seems like a stretch to me. Cheney was vice president, not CIA director. Plus, how many real people really care about getting revenge on Dick Cheney? Especially now, when he is out of office?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Meet the Press, or Newies for Horserace reporting
We had Sen Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) and Sen Orrin Hatch (R-somewhere out west) on the show, topic Obamacare. The senators each launched into the merits of Obamacare or no Obamacare. Every time they got into a discussion of real issues, the moderator, newsie David Gregory, would interrupt and ask them to comment on the bill's odds of passing, or who had taken sides. In short, Gregory covers the issue like a horserace, all he cares about is who is ahead, he doesn't care about what it means, he just wants to predict a winner. Any winner. He sees no obligation to burden voters with facts or issues. Just pick the winner of the horserace.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Bipartisanship is the Holy Grail
In American political folklore, bipartisan bills are virtuous, wholesome, and god fearing. The rationale being that if both parties agree that the bill is a Good Thing, then it must be OK (or at least non-toxic).
Needless to say, both parties want their bills to gain the label of "bipartisan" and they accuse the other party of "obstructionism" if they fail to jump on board. Once the minority party has voted for a bill, they cannot campaign against it. The Obamacare bill, currently raising political blood pressure is a fine example.
The real question for the minority party is whether a majority party bill is of sufficient worth to support. The working politician firmly believes in "scratch my back and I will scratch yours." Unless the bill is really really bad, the minority party is tempted to offer "bi partisan" support, in return for a promise of earmarks, committee assignments, and support for it's pet projects.
Trouble with the "go along and get along" strategy comes at election time. The voters have great difficulty seeing much difference between the two parties, especially when they have been "bi-partisan" all the time.
So far this administration, the Republicans have been good about opposing things that smell really bad. They voted against the Porkulus, Cap and Tax, and Obamacare. They need to keep it up, any weakening will cost them in 2010.
Needless to say, both parties want their bills to gain the label of "bipartisan" and they accuse the other party of "obstructionism" if they fail to jump on board. Once the minority party has voted for a bill, they cannot campaign against it. The Obamacare bill, currently raising political blood pressure is a fine example.
The real question for the minority party is whether a majority party bill is of sufficient worth to support. The working politician firmly believes in "scratch my back and I will scratch yours." Unless the bill is really really bad, the minority party is tempted to offer "bi partisan" support, in return for a promise of earmarks, committee assignments, and support for it's pet projects.
Trouble with the "go along and get along" strategy comes at election time. The voters have great difficulty seeing much difference between the two parties, especially when they have been "bi-partisan" all the time.
So far this administration, the Republicans have been good about opposing things that smell really bad. They voted against the Porkulus, Cap and Tax, and Obamacare. They need to keep it up, any weakening will cost them in 2010.
Lets fix Copyright Law
US Copyright law now runs for the life of the author plus 75 years. Call it a century. The publishers like it, but in actually practice it takes scads of books off the market. Most books only stay in print for 10 or 15 years. Once out of print, they are unavailable, but, still under copyright so Xeroxing a few copies is illegal. They don't enter the public domain for another 90 years or so. Keeping them on copyright earns nothing for the author, although the publishers are in favor lest old books compete with sale of new ones.
We ought to reduce copyright to the original 17 years. All the money the author gets will be gotten inside of 17 years. After that time, the big sales have been made. Plus the author ought to get off his duff and write something new. It's proper to reward authors, but 17 years of royalties is enough reward in my book.
Big plus, most music is more than 17 years old, so most downloading becomes legal. The labels haven't found new artists in the last twenty years. Don't believe me? Just hit signal seek on the car radio. Can you find a song that isn't twenty years old on the air?
Then copyright should restrict only the right to SELL copies. Making copies, giving away copies, and downloading songs isn't selling. It ought to be legal. Taping music off the air is legal, taping movies off the air is legal, why is downloading off the internet not legal?
During this summer of healthcare discontent, it's hard to focus on anything but healthcare, but we ought to broaden our horizons. The young voters see downloading as a fundamental right. The party that supports it will gain a lot of votes. It might cost them bribes/campaign contributions from the publishers and the labels, but votes and voters are more important than cash for getting re elected, the prime objective of all politicians.
We ought to reduce copyright to the original 17 years. All the money the author gets will be gotten inside of 17 years. After that time, the big sales have been made. Plus the author ought to get off his duff and write something new. It's proper to reward authors, but 17 years of royalties is enough reward in my book.
Big plus, most music is more than 17 years old, so most downloading becomes legal. The labels haven't found new artists in the last twenty years. Don't believe me? Just hit signal seek on the car radio. Can you find a song that isn't twenty years old on the air?
Then copyright should restrict only the right to SELL copies. Making copies, giving away copies, and downloading songs isn't selling. It ought to be legal. Taping music off the air is legal, taping movies off the air is legal, why is downloading off the internet not legal?
During this summer of healthcare discontent, it's hard to focus on anything but healthcare, but we ought to broaden our horizons. The young voters see downloading as a fundamental right. The party that supports it will gain a lot of votes. It might cost them bribes/campaign contributions from the publishers and the labels, but votes and voters are more important than cash for getting re elected, the prime objective of all politicians.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A mouse in the house
After getting the kid's old laptop to play, I needed a real mouse. The usual laptop built in thumb pad is a pain to use, and this one way getting flaky, it occasionally left clicked all by itself with unfortunate consequences, like accidental file deletion. So I grabbed the mouse off the dying desktop. No go, lap top doesn't have a mouse port to plug it into. All it has are USB ports.
USB was supposed to replace the keyboard port, the mouse port, the speaker& mike ports, and the printer port thus saving five electrical connectors on the back of the laptop. One trouble with this plan. USB doesn't work until Windows boots all the way up. If for some reason Windows croaks, your keyboard is dead, making it impossible to boot from a recovery disk, program the BIOS, run diagonostics, and in general try to fix the problem. Lesson learned. Don't buy a desktop that lacks a real keyboard port.
Anyhow, the old standard mouse won't plug into USB, I needed a USB mouse. So ho off to Staples (the only vaguely electronicky place up here) to buy a mouse. Staples had a regular house house with a dozen different mice. I settled for the cheapest $15 mouse from Logitech. I passed on the fancier wireless mice costing as much as $99. Plugged in the new rodent and lo and behold, it works. Windows carries the code to work USB mice as well as standard mice, and Logitech had followed the standards closely enough for it's mouse to work with Microsoft's software.
Next step, read the instructions, printed in English French Spanish and Lower Slobbovian. The instructions promised a mouse powered orgy if only I would download Logitech's mouse driver package. Being somewhat stupid, I Firefoxed out to the Logitech website and looked for the driver. Logitech has been making mice for many years, and the download page offered pictures of about 100 different mice. Just pictures, no part numbers. On the internet all mice look alike. I began to doubt the wisdom of proceeding when I found out the driver (Setpoint 4.72) was a 52 megabyte file. That's bloatware supreme for a mouse driver.
Doubt rose higher as the install took a good 15 minutes. After the install finished the laptop slowed down. A lot. Bad sign. Plus, all that Setpoint 4.72 offered was to switch the left and right mouse buttons, not something anyone in their right mind wants to do. So, bring up "install and remove programs" and try to remove the mouse driver. All that did was cause failure messages saying the driver could not be removed until Windows had been rebooted. Arrgh.
At least, the reboot worked, I was able to blow Setpoint 4.72 into the big bit bucket in the sky.
That's the last mouse driver I'm ever gonna download.
USB was supposed to replace the keyboard port, the mouse port, the speaker& mike ports, and the printer port thus saving five electrical connectors on the back of the laptop. One trouble with this plan. USB doesn't work until Windows boots all the way up. If for some reason Windows croaks, your keyboard is dead, making it impossible to boot from a recovery disk, program the BIOS, run diagonostics, and in general try to fix the problem. Lesson learned. Don't buy a desktop that lacks a real keyboard port.
Anyhow, the old standard mouse won't plug into USB, I needed a USB mouse. So ho off to Staples (the only vaguely electronicky place up here) to buy a mouse. Staples had a regular house house with a dozen different mice. I settled for the cheapest $15 mouse from Logitech. I passed on the fancier wireless mice costing as much as $99. Plugged in the new rodent and lo and behold, it works. Windows carries the code to work USB mice as well as standard mice, and Logitech had followed the standards closely enough for it's mouse to work with Microsoft's software.
Next step, read the instructions, printed in English French Spanish and Lower Slobbovian. The instructions promised a mouse powered orgy if only I would download Logitech's mouse driver package. Being somewhat stupid, I Firefoxed out to the Logitech website and looked for the driver. Logitech has been making mice for many years, and the download page offered pictures of about 100 different mice. Just pictures, no part numbers. On the internet all mice look alike. I began to doubt the wisdom of proceeding when I found out the driver (Setpoint 4.72) was a 52 megabyte file. That's bloatware supreme for a mouse driver.
Doubt rose higher as the install took a good 15 minutes. After the install finished the laptop slowed down. A lot. Bad sign. Plus, all that Setpoint 4.72 offered was to switch the left and right mouse buttons, not something anyone in their right mind wants to do. So, bring up "install and remove programs" and try to remove the mouse driver. All that did was cause failure messages saying the driver could not be removed until Windows had been rebooted. Arrgh.
At least, the reboot worked, I was able to blow Setpoint 4.72 into the big bit bucket in the sky.
That's the last mouse driver I'm ever gonna download.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Promoting the bean counter
Today's Wall St Journal has a piece entitled "Move over, CEO: The Time is Right for the Chief Financial Officer to be a Co-Leader". Written by Philip Tulimera and Moshe Banai, both professors of management.
Real companies manufacture and sell products. Success of the company depends upon economical and high quality manufacturing, effective advertising and sales, and brilliant engineering that produces new products. The head of a real company ought to have experience in all four key activities.
Chief Financial Officers are staff, who keep the books and borrow money. They may know Excel spreadsheets backward and forward, and may be buddy-buddy with the banker, but they are totally ignorant of the key operations, manufacturing, advertising, sales, and engineering. No way should a bean counter (aka CFO) be in a position to call the shots or veto the decisions of the CEO. He just doesn't know enough about the real operations of the company.
Successful companies are run by CEO's who have a clear vision of the company's business and its customers. They make the key decisions about where company resources are invested. They make the projections of return on investment and weight the risks involved in each move. The bean counter only knows the costs, he has no idea of the potential return from the move, or the risk of the move failing.
GM and Chrysler had internally promoted bean counters as CEO's. Ford had a real executive from Boeing. Look who went bankrupt and who didn't.
Leave corporate management in the hands of the CEO.
Real companies manufacture and sell products. Success of the company depends upon economical and high quality manufacturing, effective advertising and sales, and brilliant engineering that produces new products. The head of a real company ought to have experience in all four key activities.
Chief Financial Officers are staff, who keep the books and borrow money. They may know Excel spreadsheets backward and forward, and may be buddy-buddy with the banker, but they are totally ignorant of the key operations, manufacturing, advertising, sales, and engineering. No way should a bean counter (aka CFO) be in a position to call the shots or veto the decisions of the CEO. He just doesn't know enough about the real operations of the company.
Successful companies are run by CEO's who have a clear vision of the company's business and its customers. They make the key decisions about where company resources are invested. They make the projections of return on investment and weight the risks involved in each move. The bean counter only knows the costs, he has no idea of the potential return from the move, or the risk of the move failing.
GM and Chrysler had internally promoted bean counters as CEO's. Ford had a real executive from Boeing. Look who went bankrupt and who didn't.
Leave corporate management in the hands of the CEO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)