Can they go deep enough to take out Iran's nuclear facilities? Ordinary iron bombs in reasonable sizes (750 to 1000 pounds) punch down 30-35 feet in plain dirt. Out of a six bomb rack load, we would put a long delay time fuse on just one bomb. The other five would get instantaneous fuses. Those bombs would blow up the target. The long delay fuze would get the repair crews the next day. After a while the comrades wised up and would wait 24 hours after the raid before starting work to fix the damage.
Back in WWII, Barnes Wallis in England devised the first deep penetrator bomb. He called it Tallboy, it weighed 12000 pounds, had a tough steel case with a pointy nose, and it would go down 80 or 90 feet and then explode. It took out a number of German targets, and was used to sink the Tirpitz in Alta Fiord. Even Tallboy couldn't deal with all targets. The British built a bigger penetrator for the harder targets that they called Grand Slam. Grand Slam was 20000 pounds, which was so heavy that the wings of the Lancaster bomber carrying it could be seen to bow upwards under the load. Grand Slam seems to be the limit for WWII aircraft to hoist off the ground.
Twenty first century aircraft can hoist a good deal more than their WWII ancestors. Little has been published, but Aviation Week once described new penetrator bomb casings made out of old 16 inch cannon barrels. Those ought to go down quite a ways.
But, little has been published on how deep the Iranians have dug in. And what they have bug into, plain dirt? sedimentary rock? granite? NORAD HQ in Colorado was dug under a solid granite mountain and was considered proof against nukes.
So, mission planners either IAF or USAF, the question is, will your penetrator bombs penetrate deep enough? Will even a nuclear penetrator bomb go that deep?
One clue, the Israelis have not already bombed out the Iranians. If they thought it would work, they probably would have done it by now.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
If the radar cannot see you, the fighters cannot find you.
Looks like our air defenses are about as good, or as bad, as the Soviets used to have. Back some years ago a German teenager flew a Cessna all the way into Russia and landed it in Red Square, right in front of the Kremlin. The Russians freaked, this was back in the cold war, and they figured if a German kid could make it thru, SAC could as well. Some Russian heads were rolled over the affair.
Yesterday we had a guy land a Gyrocopter (very small one man autogyro) right on the Capitol lawn. He flew it down from Gettysburg PA. He probably never exceeded a couple of hundred feet altitude, and the radar cross section of a little, largely wood, autogyro is SMALL. The radar never saw him, and even if it had, he would have looked like any other light plane. The restricted airspace around DC ain't that big, and it was probably only minutes from the time he crossed into the DC no-fly zone and he landed at the Capitol.
So, if it can happen to the old Soviet Union, it can happen to us. The Gyrocopter is too small to carry much in the way of munitions. You could do more damage ramming an SUV thru the Capitol gates. It's given us a lot of amusing TV news. I hope the guy that did it gets off with a scolding.
Yesterday we had a guy land a Gyrocopter (very small one man autogyro) right on the Capitol lawn. He flew it down from Gettysburg PA. He probably never exceeded a couple of hundred feet altitude, and the radar cross section of a little, largely wood, autogyro is SMALL. The radar never saw him, and even if it had, he would have looked like any other light plane. The restricted airspace around DC ain't that big, and it was probably only minutes from the time he crossed into the DC no-fly zone and he landed at the Capitol.
So, if it can happen to the old Soviet Union, it can happen to us. The Gyrocopter is too small to carry much in the way of munitions. You could do more damage ramming an SUV thru the Capitol gates. It's given us a lot of amusing TV news. I hope the guy that did it gets off with a scolding.
Defending Middle Earth Patrick Currey
I am a long term Tolkien fan. My parents gave me the first volume of Lord of the Rings for Christmas back when I was in grade school. I read and reread the entire trilogy several times. I read it aloud to my children years later. I saw all the Peter Jackson movies.
So when I saw this title down at the Littleton Village Bookstore I bought it. I read it. Somehow, Currey manages to let the words roll out but never gets around to saying anything that I didn't know before I read it. "Shoveling" is what my high school English teachers called this style.
English teachers, and literary critics have never liked Tolkien, despite or perhaps because of, its enormous popularity. Tolkien has little "hidden meaning" of the sort that literary types enjoy searching out. Tolkien doesn't hide any meanings. He lets his love of trees, the countryside, Anglo Saxon myth and legend , courage, Elvish languages, and endurance stand right out in plain English. There isn't all that much that needs teaching in Tolkien. This might account for the disdain for Tolkien shown by teachers and critics.
Tolkien creates a wealth of truly wonderful characters. Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, Theoden, Faramir, Barliman Butterbur, Treebeard, Galadriel, Merry, Eowyn, and Pippin. Tolkien's bad guys are really bad, the baddest ever. Sauron is more evil, more dangerous than any other villain in literature. Saruman and Denethor are not far behind in the practice of villainy. This is in contrast to modern literary style of a single character coping with his psychological hangups. Sauron doesn't have psychological hangups. He knows exactly what he wants and he moves directly toward getting it and crushing his enemies.
Lord of the Rings follows the classic formula for story telling. The protagonist (a unisex word for hero) is faced with a challenge. He rises to his challenge, and makes a first attempt to deal with it, and it doesn't work. At the climax of the story he makes a final do or die attempt to surmount the challenge and either wins or looses. All the rest of the story is anti-climax. In chapter 2, The Shadow of The Past, Gandalf explains to Frodo about the ring and shows him what he must do. From there on thruout the rest of the book, we readers are perfectly clear about the Quest's objective, although we have no idea how Frodo is going to cope with it. At the climax, Frodo fails, he takes the ring for himself, and is saved by Gollum of all people.
One reason for Tolkien's popularity is the Middle Earth setting. It's beautiful, it's comfortable, it has dangers lurking in the darker spots that heroes can overcome with courage and cold steel. It's the sort of place many of us would like to retire to, or perhaps move to tomorrow. It is solid in our imaginations, so solid that Peter Jackson's movie sets looked just right, first time I saw the movie. Tolkien's prose is so vivid that Jackson, Jackson's set builders, and I, an old reader, had the very same image of what the Shire and Bag End should look like.
Since Tolkien, numerous authors have attempted to write fantasy. I've read some of it and it's not Tolkien, in fact most of it is dreadful. Somehow Tolkien did it, and nobody else has been able to. I'm nor sure why, but that's the way it is.
So when I saw this title down at the Littleton Village Bookstore I bought it. I read it. Somehow, Currey manages to let the words roll out but never gets around to saying anything that I didn't know before I read it. "Shoveling" is what my high school English teachers called this style.
English teachers, and literary critics have never liked Tolkien, despite or perhaps because of, its enormous popularity. Tolkien has little "hidden meaning" of the sort that literary types enjoy searching out. Tolkien doesn't hide any meanings. He lets his love of trees, the countryside, Anglo Saxon myth and legend , courage, Elvish languages, and endurance stand right out in plain English. There isn't all that much that needs teaching in Tolkien. This might account for the disdain for Tolkien shown by teachers and critics.
Tolkien creates a wealth of truly wonderful characters. Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, Theoden, Faramir, Barliman Butterbur, Treebeard, Galadriel, Merry, Eowyn, and Pippin. Tolkien's bad guys are really bad, the baddest ever. Sauron is more evil, more dangerous than any other villain in literature. Saruman and Denethor are not far behind in the practice of villainy. This is in contrast to modern literary style of a single character coping with his psychological hangups. Sauron doesn't have psychological hangups. He knows exactly what he wants and he moves directly toward getting it and crushing his enemies.
Lord of the Rings follows the classic formula for story telling. The protagonist (a unisex word for hero) is faced with a challenge. He rises to his challenge, and makes a first attempt to deal with it, and it doesn't work. At the climax of the story he makes a final do or die attempt to surmount the challenge and either wins or looses. All the rest of the story is anti-climax. In chapter 2, The Shadow of The Past, Gandalf explains to Frodo about the ring and shows him what he must do. From there on thruout the rest of the book, we readers are perfectly clear about the Quest's objective, although we have no idea how Frodo is going to cope with it. At the climax, Frodo fails, he takes the ring for himself, and is saved by Gollum of all people.
One reason for Tolkien's popularity is the Middle Earth setting. It's beautiful, it's comfortable, it has dangers lurking in the darker spots that heroes can overcome with courage and cold steel. It's the sort of place many of us would like to retire to, or perhaps move to tomorrow. It is solid in our imaginations, so solid that Peter Jackson's movie sets looked just right, first time I saw the movie. Tolkien's prose is so vivid that Jackson, Jackson's set builders, and I, an old reader, had the very same image of what the Shire and Bag End should look like.
Since Tolkien, numerous authors have attempted to write fantasy. I've read some of it and it's not Tolkien, in fact most of it is dreadful. Somehow Tolkien did it, and nobody else has been able to. I'm nor sure why, but that's the way it is.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
IRS, crying for funding.
They have 85,000 employees. Put every single one of 'em on the help desk. That ought to answer the taxpayers calls. What do they have to do before the tax returns come in on April 15 (today!!). Put 'em on the help desk, every single one of 'em, including that snooty commissioner. After April 15 put 'em to work processing tax returns.
And, while we are at it, Congress ought to outlaw all those damn worksheets the IRS has socked us with. Being unable or unwilling to state what the tax is in the instructions for Form 1040, the IRS gives us all these crazy 20-30 step work sheets to calculate this or that. By the time you have fought your way thru all the steps, you head is so turned around that you have no idea whether you got it right or not. If they cannot state the basis of the tax, and how to compute it, in plain English in a sentence or two, it's too damn complicated.
And, personal income tax would be fairer and easier to compute if we had a rule, income is income, no matter where it comes from. Wages, dividends, qualified dividends, rents, royalties, capital gains, company cars, social security, pensions, bank interest, company health care, gambling winnings, you name it, it's all income, it all pays the same tax rate.
And, while we are at it, Congress ought to outlaw all those damn worksheets the IRS has socked us with. Being unable or unwilling to state what the tax is in the instructions for Form 1040, the IRS gives us all these crazy 20-30 step work sheets to calculate this or that. By the time you have fought your way thru all the steps, you head is so turned around that you have no idea whether you got it right or not. If they cannot state the basis of the tax, and how to compute it, in plain English in a sentence or two, it's too damn complicated.
And, personal income tax would be fairer and easier to compute if we had a rule, income is income, no matter where it comes from. Wages, dividends, qualified dividends, rents, royalties, capital gains, company cars, social security, pensions, bank interest, company health care, gambling winnings, you name it, it's all income, it all pays the same tax rate.
Pictures on the Tracfone
OK, I got the phone to take a still picture. It's grainier and more pixelated than what my Canon point-n-shoot can do, but fair. The test photo is still in the phone. I tried plugging the USB cable into my computers, one an antique running XP, the other an up to date laptop running Win 8. The computers noticed the USB plug in of the phone. Neither of them had a device driver to talk to the LG phone. Google did not turn up any LG device drivers on the net. Best I found was a site that promised to download a driver checker, inspect ALL my drivers and replace any that it pleased. That was too scary for me. The drivers presently on the machines work, new drivers sometime don't work.
So then I thought I would introduce cell phone to my wifi router. That did not go well. The phone asked for the router's password but would not show the alpha key board to allow me to type in "Ridgecut". All the other magic numbers from the router, which I had faithfully logged, were mixed alpha-numeric, which I could not type in from the telephone style keypad offered.
So, the photo is still in the cell.
So then I thought I would introduce cell phone to my wifi router. That did not go well. The phone asked for the router's password but would not show the alpha key board to allow me to type in "Ridgecut". All the other magic numbers from the router, which I had faithfully logged, were mixed alpha-numeric, which I could not type in from the telephone style keypad offered.
So, the photo is still in the cell.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Majoring in those other things
Colleges offer a lot of stuff that is neither liberal arts, nor STEM.
First there is sociology, which wants to be considered a science, but you cannot do experiments, and the observations are all debatable as to what they mean. Then we have political science, another wannabe science with no experimental basis and debatable observations. Neither subject is much use in the job market. You have to question the value of going into debt for either of them.
The gender studies, black studies, in fact anything with "studies" in its name, are of little to no use in the real world.
Economics is another wannabe science with at least a little use in finance. It's a better deal than sociology or poly sci when you go job hunting.
And the education major. This at least is a real job course, with an ed major degree you can teach in the public schools. Too bad the course material is utterly boring and useless. The teacher's unions have made an ed degree mandatory as a way of limiting entrance to the teaching field. You gotta truly want to teach to suffer thru the ed major.
First there is sociology, which wants to be considered a science, but you cannot do experiments, and the observations are all debatable as to what they mean. Then we have political science, another wannabe science with no experimental basis and debatable observations. Neither subject is much use in the job market. You have to question the value of going into debt for either of them.
The gender studies, black studies, in fact anything with "studies" in its name, are of little to no use in the real world.
Economics is another wannabe science with at least a little use in finance. It's a better deal than sociology or poly sci when you go job hunting.
And the education major. This at least is a real job course, with an ed major degree you can teach in the public schools. Too bad the course material is utterly boring and useless. The teacher's unions have made an ed degree mandatory as a way of limiting entrance to the teaching field. You gotta truly want to teach to suffer thru the ed major.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Majoring in the Liberal Arts
The liberal arts are English, modern languages, music, art, history, philosophy, and mathematics. Even though mathematics is the M in STEM, all colleges I know place the math department in the college of liberal arts.
One thing to bear in mind, all the liberal arts departments see their mission as the training of new college professors to carry on the teaching of liberal arts. You want to do some thinking about that career path. Although a tenured college professor gets paid reasonably well and the work is interesting and you get to work with students, the openings are few and far between. Most colleges hire "adjunct" part time professors to do the bulk of the teaching. The pay is poor, no health care, no benefits, and the competition is fierce, and the chance to make tenure is slim to none. The pay is barely enough to keep a single guy or gal alive. The thinking student looks to a job outside of academia, the pay is MUCH better.
The English major centers about the study of great books, Shakespeare and the like. The good English writers write about the human condition and people's reaction to difficult/terrible circumstances. Knowing the literature gives good insight into real people in the real world. With luck, you can get in some real writing courses, where you write, hand in the writing and the professor grades it and comments on it.
Avoid the unreal writing courses where the professor just talks about writing. Aside from the obvious teaching career, industry needs zillions of words written for advertising copy, instruction manuals, proposals, website text, you name it. Magazines, newspapers, e-zines always need copy. Don't plan on a career writing novels. The publishing business is only buying from agented writers. Newbies have to self publish ebooks, which can be fun, but there is little money in it.
Modern languages lead to jobs with US corporations operating overseas. They would much rather have their overseas operations run by a dependable American who speaks the language rather than local hires, who might be Al Quada for all anyone in New York knows.
Music is good, but you ought to have a little musical talent before you major in it. Performers do hit it big, but for every Elvis there are ten thousand wannabes who never get beyond doing gigs in nightclubs.
Same goes for art. You ought to have some artistic talent before you major in it. If you can draw there are a zillion people needing artwork for every thing under the sun. If you cannot draw, employment options are VERY limited.
A history major is similar to an English major, except the field of discourse is broader, all of human history, rather than just books written in English in the last thousand years. You do get some very useful training in the separation of fact from fiction.
Philosophy is fun, but I cannot think of any career that wants, or even would benefit from a philosophy major.
Math is very useful, although you should be aware of the tendency of math departments to concentrate upon the proving of pure mathematical theorems rather than the application of mathematics to solving real world problems. If you like math, you should look at going for an engineering degree. At my school the math department was so removed from the real world that the engineering departments all taught their own math courses.
One thing to bear in mind, all the liberal arts departments see their mission as the training of new college professors to carry on the teaching of liberal arts. You want to do some thinking about that career path. Although a tenured college professor gets paid reasonably well and the work is interesting and you get to work with students, the openings are few and far between. Most colleges hire "adjunct" part time professors to do the bulk of the teaching. The pay is poor, no health care, no benefits, and the competition is fierce, and the chance to make tenure is slim to none. The pay is barely enough to keep a single guy or gal alive. The thinking student looks to a job outside of academia, the pay is MUCH better.
The English major centers about the study of great books, Shakespeare and the like. The good English writers write about the human condition and people's reaction to difficult/terrible circumstances. Knowing the literature gives good insight into real people in the real world. With luck, you can get in some real writing courses, where you write, hand in the writing and the professor grades it and comments on it.
Avoid the unreal writing courses where the professor just talks about writing. Aside from the obvious teaching career, industry needs zillions of words written for advertising copy, instruction manuals, proposals, website text, you name it. Magazines, newspapers, e-zines always need copy. Don't plan on a career writing novels. The publishing business is only buying from agented writers. Newbies have to self publish ebooks, which can be fun, but there is little money in it.
Modern languages lead to jobs with US corporations operating overseas. They would much rather have their overseas operations run by a dependable American who speaks the language rather than local hires, who might be Al Quada for all anyone in New York knows.
Music is good, but you ought to have a little musical talent before you major in it. Performers do hit it big, but for every Elvis there are ten thousand wannabes who never get beyond doing gigs in nightclubs.
Same goes for art. You ought to have some artistic talent before you major in it. If you can draw there are a zillion people needing artwork for every thing under the sun. If you cannot draw, employment options are VERY limited.
A history major is similar to an English major, except the field of discourse is broader, all of human history, rather than just books written in English in the last thousand years. You do get some very useful training in the separation of fact from fiction.
Philosophy is fun, but I cannot think of any career that wants, or even would benefit from a philosophy major.
Math is very useful, although you should be aware of the tendency of math departments to concentrate upon the proving of pure mathematical theorems rather than the application of mathematics to solving real world problems. If you like math, you should look at going for an engineering degree. At my school the math department was so removed from the real world that the engineering departments all taught their own math courses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)