Funny thing, we don't seem to have anything in writing. Just a "framework" what ever that may be. Last time the cookie pushers talked about "framework" was dealing with the Norks, who now have the bomb. The Americans say sanctions will stay on until the Iranians comply with the deal. The Iranians say sanctions stop right now. The Americans say there will be inspections. The Iranians say there won't be. This kind of public bickering doesn't sound like much agreement has been reached.
Obama says the deal will block all Iranian paths to a bomb. Great. Do we get to remove all their centrifuges and enriched uranium from the country? Do we likewise remove Iranian nuclear reactors? Obama hasn't said. All he talks about is "paths to the bomb".
Assuming we get to inspect, what happens when we catch them cheating? Do we bomb the cheating facility? Arrest the cheaters and put them on trial in the US? or Geneva? Do we "snapback" the sanctions? Or do we merely send the Iranians a nasty diplomatic note? And who declares Iran to be cheating? Us, them, the IAEA, the inspection force? Does it have to be unanimous or will majority vote suffice?
Is sanction "snapback" even possible? To really bite, sanctions have to be international, which means the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese have to join in and refuse to sell to Iran. Will they? Iran has oil, which is saleable for dollars, which gives them money to buy stuff. The Europeans, Russians, Chinese and everybody else would like to make a buck or two selling to Iran. If only the Americans refuse to sell to Iran it won't hurt them much, Iran can buy from other places. Money talks.
Will Obama cut a deal that just keeps the Iranians from getting the bomb before he leaves office?
And the $64000 question. What will we do when the Iranians test their first bomb?
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Windows 8 more gripes
Lacking anything useful to do, the Microsofties have degraded Explorer, the navigate and operate tool from its XP days. First they invented a new undocumented concept of "libraries" which as far as I can see merely mess things up by displaying the same file icon in multiple places at the same time, making you wonder if you have multiple copies of the same file.
The XP explorer would display two windows, file directories on the left, files within a selected directory on the right, and you could drag the window separator left or right to make room for deep directory structures or long filenames. Well, the draggable window bar was too much trouble, so the Micorsofties dropped it. The fixed width directory pane only shows the first two levels of directories. If you have anything deeper, finding it is a pain.
And "Magnifier" has activated itself and I cannot kill it. Dunno how that happened.
Lord preserve us from Windows 10.
The XP explorer would display two windows, file directories on the left, files within a selected directory on the right, and you could drag the window separator left or right to make room for deep directory structures or long filenames. Well, the draggable window bar was too much trouble, so the Micorsofties dropped it. The fixed width directory pane only shows the first two levels of directories. If you have anything deeper, finding it is a pain.
And "Magnifier" has activated itself and I cannot kill it. Dunno how that happened.
Lord preserve us from Windows 10.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Are computer models scientific?
Science is a way of thinking about the world. The ancients (Greeks and Romans) didn't have it. It was invented during the middle ages, and put into words by Roger Bacon. The key notion in science is that facts come from observation and experiment in the real world, and theories have to agree with facts. For instance the ancient Greeks developed geometry, but it was entirely a construction of the mind. Theorems were proved by mustering postulates and previously proven theorems into a neat array, never by actually measuring the geometric figure under consideration with a ruler. Geometry, useful as it is, is not a science, it is pure mathematics, it's truth comes from thought alone, unburdened by any connection with the real world.
Science has been incredably powerful since its invention. Science brought Western civilization from the dark ages to it's current position in the world. You have to respect the scientific method, it has been enormously successful.
And now, we have people, claiming to be scientific, putting forth theories based on nothing but computer models. These people are active in the "global warming" controversy, claiming that "global warming" is happening because they have programmed a "computer model" that predicts "global warming". They imply that computer model results have the strength of real world observations and experiment.
A computer model is merely an ordinary computer program that calculates what might happen, given rules that relate the effect of inputs to the model to the output. I have myself written computer models to predict the action of electronic circuits and mechanical systems. All a model does is calculate answers based upon formulas and equations from the model writer.
If the model writer's formulas and equations are wrong, or incomplete, the models predictions will be wrong. Surely everyone in these days has had some experience with the unreliability of computer programs.
One test for completeness and accuracy of computer models is to set the inputs equal to some time in the past, run the model forward thru time, and see if the model's predictions match the actual real world situation.
The global warmer's models all pretty much fail that test. None of them come any where close to matching today's weather when started in the past. And, none of them predicted the past 19 years cessation of global warming.
So when someone starts in on "global warming" ask them where they get their data. When they say "computer models", beware.
Science has been incredably powerful since its invention. Science brought Western civilization from the dark ages to it's current position in the world. You have to respect the scientific method, it has been enormously successful.
And now, we have people, claiming to be scientific, putting forth theories based on nothing but computer models. These people are active in the "global warming" controversy, claiming that "global warming" is happening because they have programmed a "computer model" that predicts "global warming". They imply that computer model results have the strength of real world observations and experiment.
A computer model is merely an ordinary computer program that calculates what might happen, given rules that relate the effect of inputs to the model to the output. I have myself written computer models to predict the action of electronic circuits and mechanical systems. All a model does is calculate answers based upon formulas and equations from the model writer.
If the model writer's formulas and equations are wrong, or incomplete, the models predictions will be wrong. Surely everyone in these days has had some experience with the unreliability of computer programs.
One test for completeness and accuracy of computer models is to set the inputs equal to some time in the past, run the model forward thru time, and see if the model's predictions match the actual real world situation.
The global warmer's models all pretty much fail that test. None of them come any where close to matching today's weather when started in the past. And, none of them predicted the past 19 years cessation of global warming.
So when someone starts in on "global warming" ask them where they get their data. When they say "computer models", beware.
More Tracfone
Progress. I got a few contacts successfully entered into the contact list. A bunch of random button pushes finally brought up the alpha touch keyboard. You hit an unlabeled, undocumented button in the upper right hand corner of the dinky little touchscreen and the alpha keyboard appears. Why it doesn't appear when you hit "Name" is clearly a case of the software guru's deciding to make life difficult for users. I'm a retired software guru myself and I know contempt for customers when I see it.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Tracfone
Under pressure from my children I went out and bought a cell phone. The kids wanted to be able to reach me on the road to see when I might be getting in. So, on advice of my brother, who has one, I bought a Tracfone from Walmart. Cheap, phone was only $28 for a phone with a screen, a 60 minute card was only $19.88 getting me on the air for only $47.88. It has a touch screen, built in camera, and a bunch of other stuff I haven't figured out yet. No contract, no monthly bill, just buy more minutes when ever you run low. Minutes are good for 150 days then they evaporate unless you buy more.
Shoplifting appears to be a problem. Walmart had the hanger upon which the Tracfones hung locked, I had to get a clerk to unlock the rack so I could buy it. Packaging is the ultra tough transparent stuff that required my Swiss Army knife to open. Package contained the phone, battery, and charger/USB cable. Following instructions I inserted the battery and plugged it in to charge the battery. Phone refused to do anything else until it was fully charged.
Then it wanted to be "activated". I logged into a website www.tracfone.com and answered a buncha questions, and after a couple of tries, the phone activated. I placed a test call and it went thru. I have cell phone coverage in Mittersill. Yeh! Wasn't too sure about that since all the children's cell phones had had trouble connecting from here. Progress.
Then I started thru the on-line instruction manual. Step one was to identify which of 50 different models of phone I had. I looked on the phone, and all it said with "LG" A Korean outfit with a pretty good rep that used to call itself Lucky Goldstar, back when it got going making VCRs. They changed their name to LG when they hit the big time and decided that Lucky Goldstar sounded too frivolous to American customers. But, LG had neglected to put the model number on the product, a major marketing goof in my book. You always mark your company name and the product name or model number on the product. Fortunately the model number was on the cover of the instruction booklet.
Next trick is to enter important phone numbers into the phone's memory. I'm stuck on that step as of now. The only way to enter letters involved a telephone style keypad with three letters on each key. Just hitting keys gives a gibberish name field, which doesn't work for me. I'm researching this hiccup right now.
And, more research required. It rang, but I couldn't find my way to the "answer the call" button.
Shoplifting appears to be a problem. Walmart had the hanger upon which the Tracfones hung locked, I had to get a clerk to unlock the rack so I could buy it. Packaging is the ultra tough transparent stuff that required my Swiss Army knife to open. Package contained the phone, battery, and charger/USB cable. Following instructions I inserted the battery and plugged it in to charge the battery. Phone refused to do anything else until it was fully charged.
Then it wanted to be "activated". I logged into a website www.tracfone.com and answered a buncha questions, and after a couple of tries, the phone activated. I placed a test call and it went thru. I have cell phone coverage in Mittersill. Yeh! Wasn't too sure about that since all the children's cell phones had had trouble connecting from here. Progress.
Then I started thru the on-line instruction manual. Step one was to identify which of 50 different models of phone I had. I looked on the phone, and all it said with "LG" A Korean outfit with a pretty good rep that used to call itself Lucky Goldstar, back when it got going making VCRs. They changed their name to LG when they hit the big time and decided that Lucky Goldstar sounded too frivolous to American customers. But, LG had neglected to put the model number on the product, a major marketing goof in my book. You always mark your company name and the product name or model number on the product. Fortunately the model number was on the cover of the instruction booklet.
Next trick is to enter important phone numbers into the phone's memory. I'm stuck on that step as of now. The only way to enter letters involved a telephone style keypad with three letters on each key. Just hitting keys gives a gibberish name field, which doesn't work for me. I'm researching this hiccup right now.
And, more research required. It rang, but I couldn't find my way to the "answer the call" button.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Plastic corks, This is progress??
They got everything now. Plastic corks for champagne bottles. They appear to work, the Andre (real quality brand that) champagne held pressure. They come off with just fingers. They go back on and the champagne holds its fizz over night in the fridge.
Gone is the loud POP and the flying cork which yielded so much entertainment at Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners.
The price of progress can be heavy.
Gone is the loud POP and the flying cork which yielded so much entertainment at Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners.
The price of progress can be heavy.
Game of Thrones Season 4
Just came in from Netflix. Episode 1, Two Swords. Time Warner cable doesn't carry HBO so I see everything a year later. It's still good. The sets and costumes are elaborate, expensive looking, and convincing. The multiple story arcs (Jon Snow in the Black Watch. Arya on the lam, Sansa Stark married to Tyrion Lannister, Jaime Lannister and Brienne fumbling along, Bran struggling to get beyond the Wall, Theon Grayjoy getting tortured, Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister being obnoxious) can get confusing. It's surprising that we can have so many story arcs after killing off so many likeable major characters (Lord Ned Stark, Rob Stark, Cat Stark) However each surviving story arc still retains its interest.
They have improved the sound track. I could understand everything that was said. Last season they had some really bad episodes where I could not understand a word. One of them with Jaime Lannister and Brienne sharing a hot tub would have been more fun to watch if I could have understood what they were saying to each other.
I liked the scene toward the end where Arya has somehow fallen in with big, old, and ugly Sir Gregor Clegane ("The Hound"). It opens with Clegane and Arya riding double and Arya is chewing out Clegane 'cause she lacks a horse of her own and has to ride double with him. They come upon a tavern, with five bad guys inside it. Arya drags Clegane inside, whereupon the bad guy leader tries to get Clegane to join his gang. The conversation gets frostier and frostier until swords come out and Arya and the Hound wipe up the tavern floor with the bad guys. Arya gets two of them. She has done some growing over four seasons and is bigger and taller than she was in season one. Anyhow we see the unlikely pair riding away from the scene of the carnage, Arya has her own horse now, having slain its previous rider in a hand to hand sword fight. Good scene all the way.
They have improved the sound track. I could understand everything that was said. Last season they had some really bad episodes where I could not understand a word. One of them with Jaime Lannister and Brienne sharing a hot tub would have been more fun to watch if I could have understood what they were saying to each other.
I liked the scene toward the end where Arya has somehow fallen in with big, old, and ugly Sir Gregor Clegane ("The Hound"). It opens with Clegane and Arya riding double and Arya is chewing out Clegane 'cause she lacks a horse of her own and has to ride double with him. They come upon a tavern, with five bad guys inside it. Arya drags Clegane inside, whereupon the bad guy leader tries to get Clegane to join his gang. The conversation gets frostier and frostier until swords come out and Arya and the Hound wipe up the tavern floor with the bad guys. Arya gets two of them. She has done some growing over four seasons and is bigger and taller than she was in season one. Anyhow we see the unlikely pair riding away from the scene of the carnage, Arya has her own horse now, having slain its previous rider in a hand to hand sword fight. Good scene all the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)