Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Cannon Mt Ski Weather
It was 8 below this morning. Not a flake of snow. The snow all fell in Boston.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Electro Magnetic Pulse EMP
EMP, something discovered in the late 1950s. Consider a nuclear bomb. Several tons of uranium or plutonium and casework and whatever. Detonate it. The furious energy of the atomic detonation blows all the electrons off the atoms comprising the bomb, and immediate surroundings. Turns them into charged ions, and blows them away at supersonic speed. This is a massive moving electric charge, which creates a massive magnetic field that spreads out from the detonation site at the speed of light. Such a field will induce massive electric currents into any conductor that it encounters. Other doomsayers worry that solar flares or "coronal mass ejections" can do the same thing. They point to the 1850's Carrington event, a solar flare so strong that telegraph wires sizzled and crackled with sparks in telegraph offices, scaring the bejezus out of telegraph operators.
The fear is, that such currents will melt wires, arc over insulators, trip circuit breakers, melt transformers and destroy alternators. Wreaking the electric power grid, the internet, the wired phone system, the cell phone system, stereos, TVs, Ipads, everything electric or electronic and hurl our civilization back into a dark age, lit only by fire.
Not to worry. The millions of miles of wire hanging from poles, all across the continent, get struck by lightning, every minute of every day. A single lightning strike stresses electrical systems to the limit. Lightning will arc over any insulator, and fry anything. Half a century ago, every summer lightning storm would knock out the electric power. Well, over the half century since then, the power companies have hardened their systems. My lights stay on, unless a windstorm drops a tree on the wires and breaks them. Local damage, sure. My mother's home took a lightning hit a few summers ago. Blew out her satellite receiver, her DVD player, and few other things. But the electric lights survived, along with the furnace, the hot water heater, and the electric stove.
I don't believe any EMP event will ever be as bad as a lightning strike. We have hardened every thing against lightning strikes. They are probably safe against EMP events, be they hostile nukes, or solar flares.
The fear is, that such currents will melt wires, arc over insulators, trip circuit breakers, melt transformers and destroy alternators. Wreaking the electric power grid, the internet, the wired phone system, the cell phone system, stereos, TVs, Ipads, everything electric or electronic and hurl our civilization back into a dark age, lit only by fire.
Not to worry. The millions of miles of wire hanging from poles, all across the continent, get struck by lightning, every minute of every day. A single lightning strike stresses electrical systems to the limit. Lightning will arc over any insulator, and fry anything. Half a century ago, every summer lightning storm would knock out the electric power. Well, over the half century since then, the power companies have hardened their systems. My lights stay on, unless a windstorm drops a tree on the wires and breaks them. Local damage, sure. My mother's home took a lightning hit a few summers ago. Blew out her satellite receiver, her DVD player, and few other things. But the electric lights survived, along with the furnace, the hot water heater, and the electric stove.
I don't believe any EMP event will ever be as bad as a lightning strike. We have hardened every thing against lightning strikes. They are probably safe against EMP events, be they hostile nukes, or solar flares.
Cannon Mt Ski Weather
Nothing much. We got three, maybe four inches over the past four days. Last night got really cold. It was 4 below this morning. No snow, and the forecast is for no snow. All the snow is gonna fall in Boston according to the TV weather guys. It hasn't warmed up much, its only 4 about right now.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Basel backs off
"Basel" is a international committee of bank regulators who meet in Basel Switzerland now and then. Their mission is to regularize and harmonize banking regulations world wide, with the idea of prohibiting risky lending and speculation of the sort that caused Great Depression 2.0, and preventing countries from taking over international banking thru favorable national regulations. Sort of spread the pain of regulations evenly round the world.
Basel had wanted to enforce a rule requiring banks to have capital (money from investors) equal to 3% of the outstanding loans ("assets" in banker speak). The idea being that capital can be used to cover losses from loans gone bad (lender stops paying on the loan).
The banks screamed and writhed and threatened to hold their breath. And Basel backed down. They changed the rules in complex ways, some kinds of loans don't count, and some derivative deals can be counted as capital, and lo and behold, just about all the banks can meet the 3% standard without raising new capital. Great joy in Euro Bankville.
The Economist article goes on to criticize the concept of a leverage ratio (capital to loans) as crude and inefficient. They prefer a weighted scale where very safe loans ( US T-bills for example) need less capital than say Greek bonds. Which sounds good, but who does the weighting? Reputable US rating agencies like Standard and Poor gave AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities that became worthless.
The Economist likes a more liberal leverage policy. There are two ways to meet a 3% capital to loans ratio. Raise more capital (difficult and expensive) or make fewer loans. The Economist doesn't like option #2, they think it inhibits economic growth.
In real life, at least on this side of the pond, the issue is not all that important. If a big bank gets in trouble, the feds bail it out. We have FDIC, Federal Reserve, and the US Treasury all of whom handed out truck loads of money back in 2007. Bankers like this. In the bad old days, when a bank failed, the depositors lost their savings, and the bankers had to skip town before the lynch mob got its hands on them.
Basel had wanted to enforce a rule requiring banks to have capital (money from investors) equal to 3% of the outstanding loans ("assets" in banker speak). The idea being that capital can be used to cover losses from loans gone bad (lender stops paying on the loan).
The banks screamed and writhed and threatened to hold their breath. And Basel backed down. They changed the rules in complex ways, some kinds of loans don't count, and some derivative deals can be counted as capital, and lo and behold, just about all the banks can meet the 3% standard without raising new capital. Great joy in Euro Bankville.
The Economist article goes on to criticize the concept of a leverage ratio (capital to loans) as crude and inefficient. They prefer a weighted scale where very safe loans ( US T-bills for example) need less capital than say Greek bonds. Which sounds good, but who does the weighting? Reputable US rating agencies like Standard and Poor gave AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities that became worthless.
The Economist likes a more liberal leverage policy. There are two ways to meet a 3% capital to loans ratio. Raise more capital (difficult and expensive) or make fewer loans. The Economist doesn't like option #2, they think it inhibits economic growth.
In real life, at least on this side of the pond, the issue is not all that important. If a big bank gets in trouble, the feds bail it out. We have FDIC, Federal Reserve, and the US Treasury all of whom handed out truck loads of money back in 2007. Bankers like this. In the bad old days, when a bank failed, the depositors lost their savings, and the bankers had to skip town before the lynch mob got its hands on them.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Brit Hume speaks favorably about NSA
He was on Fox News a few minutes ago. Brit is a serious newsman and I have some respect for his opinions. He said the "meta data" program (scarfing up the billing records of every phone call on the planet and keeping them for ever) is legal, and has been in place for a long time, and nobody has ever found any abuses.
Maybe. On the other hand I remember they drove Gen David Petraeus out of CIA by leaking some emails with a mistress. If the head of CIA cannot keep snoopers out of his email, who can? By all accounts, they hit Petraeus with email instead of phone calls, but that's a technicality. Revealing phone calls to a mistress would be as damaging as emails.
I think the potential for abuse of the "meta data" is so high, and it's contribution to catching terrorists is so low, that I would still cancel the program, before it eats someone.
Maybe. On the other hand I remember they drove Gen David Petraeus out of CIA by leaking some emails with a mistress. If the head of CIA cannot keep snoopers out of his email, who can? By all accounts, they hit Petraeus with email instead of phone calls, but that's a technicality. Revealing phone calls to a mistress would be as damaging as emails.
I think the potential for abuse of the "meta data" is so high, and it's contribution to catching terrorists is so low, that I would still cancel the program, before it eats someone.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Words of the Weasel Part 38
"Why can't they get anything done?" Common whine from the Internet. "they" being Congress.
Translation: "Why can't they pass my pet program?" Answer: "Because you don't have the votes to pass it."
Translation: "Why can't they pass my pet program?" Answer: "Because you don't have the votes to pass it."
Friday, January 17, 2014
Obama talks about the NSA
And talks and talks and talks. And doesn't say anything of substance. He will appoint some new bureaucrats, he will set up more paperwork. There will be study committees. He will coordinate with Congress over changes to be made. The US will only spy for virtuous purposes, like counter terrorism, and never for evil purposes like commercial advantage. We will stop eavesdropping on foreign leader's personal phone calls, but we will continue to intercept their non personal calls. I'm sure that makes foreign leaders feel exceptionally secure. But they will continue the "meta data" program, the scarfing up of everyone's telephone/cellphone billing information and keeping it forever.
If it were up to me, I'd terminate the "meta data" program, right now. Having Uncle Sam keep a record of every phone call I ever made is scary. Was I ever brought into court, the government could win a conviction merely by showing that I had telephoned some scumbag, any time in the past, and poof, my credibility is shot with the jury. Bang, convicted. Over the span of a life time you accept telephone calls from lots of scumbags, for instance telemarketers, politicians, scam artists like Bernie Maddof, whatever. Plus even Uncle Sam admits that this massive "meta data" program hasn't caught any terrorists.
Shut down means removing the electronic taps the NSA has into telephone company computers. Companies (especially telephone companies) are forbidden to give any customer data to anyone without a specific court order, said order limited to a single individual over a specific length of time. Such court orders are matters of public record and may be disclosed to anyone, including the targets. And, erasing the zillions of phone records already in NSA hands.
And get rid of this "FISA" court to which the NSA and Obama keeps pointing. "It's OK, the FISA court said so." The FISA court is a mere rubber stamp, it always approves everything brought before it. Its proceedings and rulings are secret so nobody knows what's legal and what's not. Secret courts, star chambers, have no place in a democracy. Make government officials liable to civil and criminal prosecution for illegal spying. Unless the accused can show a recent Congressional law saying it's legal, bang, guilty, five years in slam.
If it were up to me, I'd terminate the "meta data" program, right now. Having Uncle Sam keep a record of every phone call I ever made is scary. Was I ever brought into court, the government could win a conviction merely by showing that I had telephoned some scumbag, any time in the past, and poof, my credibility is shot with the jury. Bang, convicted. Over the span of a life time you accept telephone calls from lots of scumbags, for instance telemarketers, politicians, scam artists like Bernie Maddof, whatever. Plus even Uncle Sam admits that this massive "meta data" program hasn't caught any terrorists.
Shut down means removing the electronic taps the NSA has into telephone company computers. Companies (especially telephone companies) are forbidden to give any customer data to anyone without a specific court order, said order limited to a single individual over a specific length of time. Such court orders are matters of public record and may be disclosed to anyone, including the targets. And, erasing the zillions of phone records already in NSA hands.
And get rid of this "FISA" court to which the NSA and Obama keeps pointing. "It's OK, the FISA court said so." The FISA court is a mere rubber stamp, it always approves everything brought before it. Its proceedings and rulings are secret so nobody knows what's legal and what's not. Secret courts, star chambers, have no place in a democracy. Make government officials liable to civil and criminal prosecution for illegal spying. Unless the accused can show a recent Congressional law saying it's legal, bang, guilty, five years in slam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)