The House voted down the 2013 US Farm bill by 234 to 195. Hurrah. The Farm Bill is the purest kind of pork. It takes my tax money and hands it out to farmers, most of whom are big corporations. The suits bought out the family farmers long ago. What money doesn't go to corporations goes to funding Food Stamps. Preliminary news reports are sketchy, but it sounds like this was a $ 1 trillion dollars over ten years bill.
Don't celebrate just yet. There is a good chance the combination of farm state votes and urban food stamps votes will pass a continuing resolution to keep the current farm program spending alive.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The Guns at Last Light
Rick Atkinson. This third history book carries the story from D-Day to defeat of Germany. It's thick, it's well written and reads nicely. It is the story of the US Army in WWII. Allies, air forces, navies, Soviets, war production, Ultra, etc you have to go somewhere else. It covers all the side shows in the European theater that most histories ignore. Here is the story of the second landing in France, the Colmar pocket, Market Garden, and the Huertzgen Forest. Now that all the participants are safely dead, it is possible to explore the political wrangling that was kept quiet for so long. As Atkinson tells it, Montgomery spent the war being insufferable, and Eisenhower spent the war suffering him in the interests of keeping the Allies allied. Also impressive is the sheer size of the war effort. The number of men sent into combat and the mountains of materiel (stuff) produced and shipped overseas to sustain the massive forces in the field is incredible even by the standards of 70 years later. It's a good read, right up there with Samuel Elliot Morison.
An Army and Dawn and Day of Battle, Atkinson's first two books are also good.
An Army and Dawn and Day of Battle, Atkinson's first two books are also good.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Suits never learn
Aviation Week interviewed Boeing CEO Jim McNerney.
Aviation Week: "In retrospect, was the amount of weight you saved with Lithium Ion batteries a case of too much risk for too little reward?"
McNerney: "It's not as simple as a weight-reduction-gone-awry conclusion because we get added capability from this battery, such as its capacity to quickly charge. In an all electric airplane, its a more capable battery.
Yeah right. Added capability is bafflegab. All a battery can do is supply electricity. As far "quick charging" and "all electric airplane", all the battery has to do is get the engines started. Then the aircraft runs off generator power. As long as the battery recharges before the engines shut down at the end of the flight, all is well.
In actual fact, some one at Boeing got carried away with the coolness of lithium batteries and did not bother to consider the fire hazard, which might not have been clear when the 787 was first conceived back in the late 1990's, but was pretty obvious by 2003 or 4. Everyone else in the industry dropped lithium battery plans after they started catching fire in the 787.
Aviation Week: "In retrospect, was the amount of weight you saved with Lithium Ion batteries a case of too much risk for too little reward?"
McNerney: "It's not as simple as a weight-reduction-gone-awry conclusion because we get added capability from this battery, such as its capacity to quickly charge. In an all electric airplane, its a more capable battery.
Yeah right. Added capability is bafflegab. All a battery can do is supply electricity. As far "quick charging" and "all electric airplane", all the battery has to do is get the engines started. Then the aircraft runs off generator power. As long as the battery recharges before the engines shut down at the end of the flight, all is well.
In actual fact, some one at Boeing got carried away with the coolness of lithium batteries and did not bother to consider the fire hazard, which might not have been clear when the 787 was first conceived back in the late 1990's, but was pretty obvious by 2003 or 4. Everyone else in the industry dropped lithium battery plans after they started catching fire in the 787.
Back to the Future, Obama style
NPR the morning announced that Obama wanted to negotiate a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with the Russians. Cool, but so 1970's. I mean nuclear deals with the Soviets were all the rage back in the 60's and 70's. But the Cold War is over, neither we nor the Russians have made an Dr. Strangelove noises for 20 years or more.
Did Obama decide to resurrect this bit of Cold War nostalgia 'cause he cannot think of anything better to do, what with scandals nipping at his heels?
Did Obama decide to resurrect this bit of Cold War nostalgia 'cause he cannot think of anything better to do, what with scandals nipping at his heels?
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Congressional Testimony on NSA snooping
They had the head of NSA and his top assistants up in front of a Congressional investigating committee today. The NSA guys looked and sounded professional and honest, unlike some the the witnesses in recent days. They pretty much confirmed that NSA gathers all the telephone billing information in the entire world and keeps it plenty long enough. The NSA guys explained that they just gather the info up and store it on their computers and don't actually look at it except after jumping thru a lot of administrative hoops, largely NSA hoops, no FISA court. They went on to explain that they only keep overseas calls, not inside the US calls.
It all sounds good, and these individuals looked trustworthy. I wonder if they will look so trustworthy after some Obama appointments. Once the data is in NSA computers, they will look at it if they care enough.
And this is legal. The Supremes held some years ago that looking at telephone company business records is not a search or a seizure. Fourth Amendment does not apply, thus saith the Supremes.
Bottom line, if you make a phone call, NSA knows about it. They claimed they don't tap the calls, they just record the fact that the call was made. That's probably true, for now.
This effort costs plenty. I wonder if we wouldn't score more good intel by taking terrorists alive and grilling them, rather than killing them to avoid putting more terrorists into Guantanamo? And not shooting people dead after the phone number monitoring. fingers them.
It all sounds good, and these individuals looked trustworthy. I wonder if they will look so trustworthy after some Obama appointments. Once the data is in NSA computers, they will look at it if they care enough.
And this is legal. The Supremes held some years ago that looking at telephone company business records is not a search or a seizure. Fourth Amendment does not apply, thus saith the Supremes.
Bottom line, if you make a phone call, NSA knows about it. They claimed they don't tap the calls, they just record the fact that the call was made. That's probably true, for now.
This effort costs plenty. I wonder if we wouldn't score more good intel by taking terrorists alive and grilling them, rather than killing them to avoid putting more terrorists into Guantanamo? And not shooting people dead after the phone number monitoring. fingers them.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Aviation Week flies the A400M
After a long and troubled development history, reaching back to 1982, the A400M has received a European type certificate, which makes it legal to sell it and fly it. They program manager feels good enough about the aircraft to let journalists fly it. Aviation Week liked it. Easy to fly, quieter than existing transports even at takeoff power, big, fast as a jet liner, decent short field landings. It's bigger than the C-130 (which makes it a BIG airplane) but not as big as a C-17.
Thing that caught my eye was the high propeller RPM's. The old C-133 kept prop revs down to 100-200 RPM even at takeoff power. A400M has odd looking props (lots of short scimitar shaped blades) that rev up to 850 RPM. This probably eases the load on the gearboxes. The engines rev up to 10,000 RPM and the gear boxes have to stand up to 11,000 horsepower without breaking. The A400M gearboxes only need a 10:1 gear ratio. The old C-133 gearboxes, which gave a lot trouble, had to have a 100:1 gear reduction which is harder to do.
The Europeans are committed to buying A400Ms. The maker, Airbus, is naturally hoping for more export sales to cover the staggering development costs. According to Aviation Week, if you divide total program costs by the number of firm orders, it comes out to $170 million per aircraft, twice the cost of a C130.
Thing that caught my eye was the high propeller RPM's. The old C-133 kept prop revs down to 100-200 RPM even at takeoff power. A400M has odd looking props (lots of short scimitar shaped blades) that rev up to 850 RPM. This probably eases the load on the gearboxes. The engines rev up to 10,000 RPM and the gear boxes have to stand up to 11,000 horsepower without breaking. The A400M gearboxes only need a 10:1 gear ratio. The old C-133 gearboxes, which gave a lot trouble, had to have a 100:1 gear reduction which is harder to do.
The Europeans are committed to buying A400Ms. The maker, Airbus, is naturally hoping for more export sales to cover the staggering development costs. According to Aviation Week, if you divide total program costs by the number of firm orders, it comes out to $170 million per aircraft, twice the cost of a C130.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
What do we know about NSA snooping?
Well, listening to the TV we don't know much. Here is what they could do, especially after spending $1 billion on a fancy data center in Utah.
They can capture and save the billing records of every phone call on the planet. They call it "metadata", but it's the stuff of your phone bill, what numbers you called, how long you talked. This allows the feds or other snoopers to go into the system with your phone number and learn all the other phone numbers you have called, going back a long time. They claim it's just phone numbers, but that doesn't matter. Put your own phone number into Google and Google will return your name and address. You might have to pay a little money, but heh, the Feds have lots of money. If the Feds have a phone number, they can get the name without much trouble. I believe they used the system on the Boston bombers. It fingered an old associate of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The FBI interviewed the associate and shot him dead during the interview. The FBI claimed self defense, the associate pulled a knife on them, they say.
Speaking of the Boston Bombers, the FBI had a solid tip from the Russians that the older brother was a terrorist. FBI claims to have interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but they didn't bother to pass the tip on to the local police, who usually have better local connections than Washington based FBI guys. Nor did they bother to put Tamerlan on a no-fly list, and they let him fly to Russia and back, and hobnob with Chechen terrorists without tipping off the Russians.
The Feds can read all your email, see what websites you visit, how often and how long, and see all your Facebook, Myspace and where ever postings. If you post anything on suspicious websites, that makes you suspicious too.
I don't think they can tap (listen to conversations) on every phone on the planet, yet.
NSA must have direct electronic connections into the phone system computers, as well as all the internet backbone companies. I heard the back bone companies on TV deny this, but I don't believe them.
This "FISA" court which is supposed to be "overseeing" NSA, approved all but 10 of 1824 snooping requests. That isn't a court, that's a rubber stamp.
I don't know where I stand on the NSA thing. One on hand, being able to drop Osama bin Laden's phone number into the system and see every one he phoned is clearly useful. On the other hand, dropping the phone numbers of anyone the administration dislikes, or conservative bloggers like me, into the system is scary. Plus Osama Bin Ladin gave up using phones after the ever patriotic New York Times revealed that NSA was tapping his satellite phone.
They can capture and save the billing records of every phone call on the planet. They call it "metadata", but it's the stuff of your phone bill, what numbers you called, how long you talked. This allows the feds or other snoopers to go into the system with your phone number and learn all the other phone numbers you have called, going back a long time. They claim it's just phone numbers, but that doesn't matter. Put your own phone number into Google and Google will return your name and address. You might have to pay a little money, but heh, the Feds have lots of money. If the Feds have a phone number, they can get the name without much trouble. I believe they used the system on the Boston bombers. It fingered an old associate of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The FBI interviewed the associate and shot him dead during the interview. The FBI claimed self defense, the associate pulled a knife on them, they say.
Speaking of the Boston Bombers, the FBI had a solid tip from the Russians that the older brother was a terrorist. FBI claims to have interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but they didn't bother to pass the tip on to the local police, who usually have better local connections than Washington based FBI guys. Nor did they bother to put Tamerlan on a no-fly list, and they let him fly to Russia and back, and hobnob with Chechen terrorists without tipping off the Russians.
The Feds can read all your email, see what websites you visit, how often and how long, and see all your Facebook, Myspace and where ever postings. If you post anything on suspicious websites, that makes you suspicious too.
I don't think they can tap (listen to conversations) on every phone on the planet, yet.
NSA must have direct electronic connections into the phone system computers, as well as all the internet backbone companies. I heard the back bone companies on TV deny this, but I don't believe them.
This "FISA" court which is supposed to be "overseeing" NSA, approved all but 10 of 1824 snooping requests. That isn't a court, that's a rubber stamp.
I don't know where I stand on the NSA thing. One on hand, being able to drop Osama bin Laden's phone number into the system and see every one he phoned is clearly useful. On the other hand, dropping the phone numbers of anyone the administration dislikes, or conservative bloggers like me, into the system is scary. Plus Osama Bin Ladin gave up using phones after the ever patriotic New York Times revealed that NSA was tapping his satellite phone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)