After the horrible massacre in Charlestown SC yesterday, Donald Trump called for the issue of firearms to the stateside military. As far back as when I was in uniform, service policy was to keep guns off base unless locked securely in the gunroom. We did not carry firearms, even in South East Asia during the Viet Nam war. Reason for the policy is accident prevention. If you have 400,000 troops carrying guns, you are gonna have some accidental discharges, and some people are gonna get themselves shot. And it only takes one bad accident to create career ending bad press coverage. So the Pentagon plays it safe and keeps guns out of the hands of the troops as much as possible.
Now that we have ISIS crazies gunning for our troops. Think Fort Hood and Charleston. It is time to stiffen the Pentagon's backbone, and make sure that when on duty, the troops have ready access to firearms. If not carried in a holster, at least a gun locker on the same floor in the workplace. Especial at small detachments, like recruiting stations, as well as big installations like the Washington Navy Yard. If just one soldier had had a gun at Fort Hood, they could have saved a dozen lives.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Saved by Autobackup
I had a long spreadsheet open in Excel. Spent an hour working on it. Then catastrophe struck, the electric power failed before I saved it. Lights just blinked, the Sony TV kept right on playing, but trusty old Compaq Presario desktop shut right down.
But wait, all was not lost. I booted up, clicked on Excel, and lo and behold, there was a nice backup to the lost spreadsheet, right out on disk. Ancient Excel 2002 managed this feat. Best thing a piece of Microsoft software has done for me in a long time.
But wait, all was not lost. I booted up, clicked on Excel, and lo and behold, there was a nice backup to the lost spreadsheet, right out on disk. Ancient Excel 2002 managed this feat. Best thing a piece of Microsoft software has done for me in a long time.
About that nuclear deal with Iran
Some Questions:
1. Could we scrap the deal and keep the sanctions on? The sanctions are an international matter, to bite, all countries have to apply them. If a few big countries decide to drop sanctions, the Iranians can do business with them and everything works for Iran. How does the rest of the world feel about keeping sanctions going? Remembering that every country is full of business people who want to do business with an oil rich country that can afford to pay its bills.
2. Given some softness in the mood for sanctions, does "snap back" work? Who decides when they are cheating? Us? Some ad hoc committee? With Iranians on the committee? If whoever calls for snap back, will it happen?
3. The Iranians really really want a bomb. Probably they view it as insurance against us doing regime change on them. Does a "treaty" make much difference in the face of such a threat to the regime's very existence? Can anything short of ground invasion and occupation stop their drive for the bomb?
4. International treaties require the advice and consent of the senate to go into effect. How can Obama threaten to veto advice and consent? Some newsies are saying that this deal isn't a treaty, how does that work really? If it's something magical and not-a-treaty, does it really bind the US to anything? Cannot a future administration repudiate it?
It would be nice if the newsies could enlighten us on any of this.
1. Could we scrap the deal and keep the sanctions on? The sanctions are an international matter, to bite, all countries have to apply them. If a few big countries decide to drop sanctions, the Iranians can do business with them and everything works for Iran. How does the rest of the world feel about keeping sanctions going? Remembering that every country is full of business people who want to do business with an oil rich country that can afford to pay its bills.
2. Given some softness in the mood for sanctions, does "snap back" work? Who decides when they are cheating? Us? Some ad hoc committee? With Iranians on the committee? If whoever calls for snap back, will it happen?
3. The Iranians really really want a bomb. Probably they view it as insurance against us doing regime change on them. Does a "treaty" make much difference in the face of such a threat to the regime's very existence? Can anything short of ground invasion and occupation stop their drive for the bomb?
4. International treaties require the advice and consent of the senate to go into effect. How can Obama threaten to veto advice and consent? Some newsies are saying that this deal isn't a treaty, how does that work really? If it's something magical and not-a-treaty, does it really bind the US to anything? Cannot a future administration repudiate it?
It would be nice if the newsies could enlighten us on any of this.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Hammacher Schlemmer catalog came today
I been getting more and more mail order catalogs over the years. Today I got the creme de la creme Hammacher Schlemmer catalog. This is the catalog for the 1%. Everything is really pricey, and they carry some extreme stuff for extreme prices. Like a $4500 Dutch bicycle. A $125,000 Mini Monster truck (for kids). A $185,000 most realistic motor racing simulator.
It's cool to read, but does anyone buy this stuff?
It's cool to read, but does anyone buy this stuff?
Monday, July 13, 2015
Forget about CO2, Water Vapor is in charge
The greenies have been beating the drum for years about CO2 as a green house gas in the earth's atmosphere. A green house gas blocks Infra Red (heat) radiation from escaping from the earth into outer space. Burning of wood, coal, oil, and natural gas releases vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has increased since the industrial revolution, from some 300 parts per million to nearly 400 parts per million today. The greenies believe that this is cause of "global warming" and are pushing for expensive economy wrecking measures to reduce the CO2 level.
Trouble is, ordinary water vapor is just a strong a greenhouse gas as CO2. And there is a LOT more water vapor out there than CO2. According to this, water vapor is 2 to 3 percent of the atmosphere, call it 20,000 to 30,000 parts per million. 300 or 400 parts million of CO2 just doesn't matter compared to that.
Since the earth's surface is 3/4 ocean, the water vapor isn't going away.
The greenies claim that water vapor is different, as the global warming comes on, more water evaporates and the water vapor content of the atmosphere goes up. But this is just another way of saying that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, which means that CO2 matters even LESS, all things being equal.
Needless to say, I don't hold with poverty enhancers like "cap and trade", the "war on coal", bans on fracking, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, handouts for battery cars, regulation of wood stove emissions, or the alcohol mandate for motor fuel. These things make life more expensive for us plain citizens and don't cool the world. To say nothing of the power handed to bureaucrats to jerk us around.
Trouble is, ordinary water vapor is just a strong a greenhouse gas as CO2. And there is a LOT more water vapor out there than CO2. According to this, water vapor is 2 to 3 percent of the atmosphere, call it 20,000 to 30,000 parts per million. 300 or 400 parts million of CO2 just doesn't matter compared to that.
Since the earth's surface is 3/4 ocean, the water vapor isn't going away.
The greenies claim that water vapor is different, as the global warming comes on, more water evaporates and the water vapor content of the atmosphere goes up. But this is just another way of saying that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, which means that CO2 matters even LESS, all things being equal.
Needless to say, I don't hold with poverty enhancers like "cap and trade", the "war on coal", bans on fracking, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, handouts for battery cars, regulation of wood stove emissions, or the alcohol mandate for motor fuel. These things make life more expensive for us plain citizens and don't cool the world. To say nothing of the power handed to bureaucrats to jerk us around.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Sun Spottiness
It's all around the Internet, a new story about a sun spot catastrophy will bring back the ice ages by 2030. Or maybe more global warming. The story claims that two cyclical patterns with in the Sun have been discovered. They didn't say how this amazing detection was performed. The two patterns will coincide in 2030 causing a Maunder Minimum, a lack of sun spots.
Trouble is, sunspots do not effect earth weather. Sun spots have been known since the 1600's, and counted. They come and go on an 11 year cycle which has been observed for hundreds of years. Sun spots effect earthly radio propagation in the HF band and so are closely observed by the radio community. At sun sport maximum propagation is good and modest radio equipment can work clean around the world. At sun spot minimum even the powerful equipment has trouble working to the horizon. But, no one has ever found an 11 year cycle in earth weather.
Sunspots don't change the sun's output much. Solar output (the solar constant) is hard to observe from the ground because of clouds and weather. To get a good reading, satellites were launched 40 years ago, and their decendants are still in orbit today. The satellites report the Sun furnishes 1300 and some change Watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. 1300 Watts is about the power of a two slice toaster. Graphs of the solar constant going back to the first satellite are on the internet. The instruments are quite sensitive, you can actually see the 11 year sun spot cycle in the graphs, but it is very weak, a few Watts out of 1300 and some.
Given that the 0.1% variation in the solar constant is too small to matter, AND no one has found an 11 year cycle in anything other than radio propagation, I say this "ice age in 2030" internet story is pure scare mongering, and bull manure to boot.
Trouble is, sunspots do not effect earth weather. Sun spots have been known since the 1600's, and counted. They come and go on an 11 year cycle which has been observed for hundreds of years. Sun spots effect earthly radio propagation in the HF band and so are closely observed by the radio community. At sun sport maximum propagation is good and modest radio equipment can work clean around the world. At sun spot minimum even the powerful equipment has trouble working to the horizon. But, no one has ever found an 11 year cycle in earth weather.
Sunspots don't change the sun's output much. Solar output (the solar constant) is hard to observe from the ground because of clouds and weather. To get a good reading, satellites were launched 40 years ago, and their decendants are still in orbit today. The satellites report the Sun furnishes 1300 and some change Watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. 1300 Watts is about the power of a two slice toaster. Graphs of the solar constant going back to the first satellite are on the internet. The instruments are quite sensitive, you can actually see the 11 year sun spot cycle in the graphs, but it is very weak, a few Watts out of 1300 and some.
Given that the 0.1% variation in the solar constant is too small to matter, AND no one has found an 11 year cycle in anything other than radio propagation, I say this "ice age in 2030" internet story is pure scare mongering, and bull manure to boot.
O'Malley on NH TV Channel 9
Josh McElway was interviewing O'Malley on TV this morning. O'Malley wants free college for everyone. Didn't bother to explain who would get stuck with the bill. Offered a few wonky policy improvements, but they aren't gonna be nearly enough. Did NOT say anything about the herds of college administrators drawing their pay but not instructing students. Then he wants 100% alternative energy "non-carbon energy". He spoke as if this would work. Did not explain how my lights stay on after the Sun goes down, or when the wind stops blowing. Did not utter the word "nuclear". Note to self, buy a generator if O'Malley gets elected. Wants to hike the minimum wage. Wants to hike taxes. Does not believe in spending cuts.
At least O'Malley talked a little substance. But he managed to convince me that he is a loon.
At least O'Malley talked a little substance. But he managed to convince me that he is a loon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)