When you set up a political event, you gotta expect some unruly troublemakers to show up and cause trouble. That's what cops are for. As part of setting up the event, you get with local law enforcement, and ask 'em to show up, in uniform, and keep order. And if trouble does break out, you blame the cops for not doing their duty.
So The Donald had some sort of trouble, type and size unspecified, somewhere around Chicago, and everyone is blaming The Donald for it. I don't get it. I don't like The Donald much, and hope something happens to keep him from becoming the Republican nominee, but lets hang him for something that he done, not something that ain't his fault.
Troublemaker's showing up at an event ain't his fault. If trouble breaks out, it's the cops fault for not stopping it.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Battery powered airliners.
NASA is funding research into them. The idea is to carry batteries and an electric motor to drive (or assist driving) the fan section of a turbofan engine to produce thrust. The greenies love the idea because it sounds so green, which is why NASA is spending money on the paper studies. I wouldn't care to ride on one.
The artist's conception sketches show a fairly ordinary looking airliner with two big jet engines slung under the wings.
The article does admit that the idea doesn't really work until the batteries get about five times better than they are today. Current lithium batteries store 150-200 watt hours per kilogram. Everyone admits that the idea needs batteries that can do 1000 watt hours per kilogram, five times better than today. That is gonna take a while. It took 50 years to go from NiCad batteries to lithium for a maybe three times improvement. At that rate of progress it will take another fifty years to get to 1000 watt hours per Kg.
Same issue of Aviation Week carries an article explaining that the International Civil Aviation Organization banning the shipment of lithium batteries on passenger airliners because of the fire hazard.
Your tax money at work.
The artist's conception sketches show a fairly ordinary looking airliner with two big jet engines slung under the wings.
The article does admit that the idea doesn't really work until the batteries get about five times better than they are today. Current lithium batteries store 150-200 watt hours per kilogram. Everyone admits that the idea needs batteries that can do 1000 watt hours per kilogram, five times better than today. That is gonna take a while. It took 50 years to go from NiCad batteries to lithium for a maybe three times improvement. At that rate of progress it will take another fifty years to get to 1000 watt hours per Kg.
Same issue of Aviation Week carries an article explaining that the International Civil Aviation Organization banning the shipment of lithium batteries on passenger airliners because of the fire hazard.
Your tax money at work.
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Paul of Dune by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson
This turned up in hardback, good dust cover, in a second hand shop for a couple of bucks, so I bought it. And read it. It is 15th sequel to Frank Herbert's fantastically good 1965 novel Dune. The sequels have been lesser works, pot boilers some would call them. This one is no exception. All though 512 pages long, it isn't really a novel in my view. It's a bunch of events, each event having little to tie it to it's sisters. The book does have a protagonist, or perhaps better explained as a view point character, namely Paul Atriedes (Muad'Dib). But Paul never does much, he is present in most of the events, but as a passive observer. Even in the final event, an attempt on his life, Paul does not even sentence the assassin to death. This is a far cry from Dune, where Paul escapes Harkonnen assassins, rallies the Fremen. overthrows the Galactic Emperor, and slays a couple of enemies hand to hand in formal duels with knives.
In a real novel, the protagonist is faced with some kind of challenge. He will make several attempts to overcome his challenge, in the last attempt, the climax of the novel, the protagonist will do or die, either triumph over his challenge or die from it. That doesn't happen here. There is no challenge to Paul Muad'Dib, he encounters a flock of bitter enemies, but nothing especial, nothing worthy of the attention of the new Galactic Emperor.
In short, after slogging thru 512 pages, bupkis.
In a real novel, the protagonist is faced with some kind of challenge. He will make several attempts to overcome his challenge, in the last attempt, the climax of the novel, the protagonist will do or die, either triumph over his challenge or die from it. That doesn't happen here. There is no challenge to Paul Muad'Dib, he encounters a flock of bitter enemies, but nothing especial, nothing worthy of the attention of the new Galactic Emperor.
In short, after slogging thru 512 pages, bupkis.
The Future of Computing
Title of cover story in the Economist. They are quoting some Silicon Valley pundits on the end of Moore's Law. Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, stated that the number of transistors in integrated circuits doubled every year, later revisions said every 2 years. The observation was based on steady improvements in silicon lithography, which yielded smaller transistors, and hence more salable chips per silicon wafer. Back when I started in the business, chips were made with 100 micron design rules. Now we are down to 19 microns. Sooner or later we will get to a size that cannot be shrunk anymore. Silicon Valley pundits have been talking about this for twenty years that I can remember, and probably longer.
The Economist been listening to the doomsayers, and ran a cover story and a special technology section worrying about the end of Moore's law. They make it sound like computers will stop getting smarter.
Not to worry, the microprocessors are plenty smart enough, and if one chip won't do the job, buy five or ten of 'em, they only cost $10 or so, and get on with it.
The real effect of the end of Moore's law is that chips will stop getting cheaper every year. Back when, Analog Devices introduced their nice new ADSP2181 chip. The first year, they lost money on every chip they sold. But after the first die shrink reduced the size of the part, and hence it's cost, it became profitable, and after three or four more die shrinks it became really cheap and profitable.
And since chips or now so cheap, I think the world will keep on rotating if they stop getting even cheaper.
The Economist been listening to the doomsayers, and ran a cover story and a special technology section worrying about the end of Moore's law. They make it sound like computers will stop getting smarter.
Not to worry, the microprocessors are plenty smart enough, and if one chip won't do the job, buy five or ten of 'em, they only cost $10 or so, and get on with it.
The real effect of the end of Moore's law is that chips will stop getting cheaper every year. Back when, Analog Devices introduced their nice new ADSP2181 chip. The first year, they lost money on every chip they sold. But after the first die shrink reduced the size of the part, and hence it's cost, it became profitable, and after three or four more die shrinks it became really cheap and profitable.
And since chips or now so cheap, I think the world will keep on rotating if they stop getting even cheaper.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Trump comes out against H1B visas
First good idea I have heard out of The Donald. H1B visa's are a deal where companies find skilled high tech workers overseas and sponsor them for temporary (a couple of years) entry to the US on the condition that they remain employed. Should there be a falling out between the H1B employee and his employer, employee must find a new sponsor ASAP lest he get deported.
Companies like this, 'cause overseas employees will work cheaper than native Americans. Take an engineer from say India. A salary that an American engineer would find insulting, looks like more money than he has ever seen in his life.
And after a few years we tell this guy his H1B has expired and he needs to return home.
This seems kinda dumb, and hard on the employee. I knew a bunch of these guys over the years working in high tech. Most of 'em are well educated, smart, hard working, decent people who would make excellent US citizens. And, we need more young smart hardworking people (makers) to keep the US economy running, and produce the stuff that 50% of the population (the takers) is drawing thru our generous welfare programs.
We ought to run immigration to build the US with good decent citizens. Every year we ought to have one big entrance exam. We admit the best people to the country and tell the others to re apply next year. Best people are the engineers, the scientists, the doctors, the young, the married, the educated and the intelligent. Admit the best and offer them permanent citizenship.
Companies like this, 'cause overseas employees will work cheaper than native Americans. Take an engineer from say India. A salary that an American engineer would find insulting, looks like more money than he has ever seen in his life.
And after a few years we tell this guy his H1B has expired and he needs to return home.
This seems kinda dumb, and hard on the employee. I knew a bunch of these guys over the years working in high tech. Most of 'em are well educated, smart, hard working, decent people who would make excellent US citizens. And, we need more young smart hardworking people (makers) to keep the US economy running, and produce the stuff that 50% of the population (the takers) is drawing thru our generous welfare programs.
We ought to run immigration to build the US with good decent citizens. Every year we ought to have one big entrance exam. We admit the best people to the country and tell the others to re apply next year. Best people are the engineers, the scientists, the doctors, the young, the married, the educated and the intelligent. Admit the best and offer them permanent citizenship.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
British Industry is against Brexit.
According to Aviation Week, British aerospace and defense companies are speaking out against Brexit. Airbus, airlines RyanAir and Easy Jet, and the company operating Heathrow airport have all decried Brexit. A report compiled by accountants KPMG suggested that three quarters of British aerospace and defense companies would vote to remain in the EU.
Too bad companies don't get to vote.
Good to hear that a few Brits have their heads screwed on nose to the front.
Too bad companies don't get to vote.
Good to hear that a few Brits have their heads screwed on nose to the front.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Open and Closed Primaries
States like NH hold open primaries, anyone can vote in either party's primary. Other states like Massachusetts hold closed primaries, you have to be a registered party member to vote in the party primary.
Arguments for closed primaries are thus. An American political party is more than just a bunch of voters. The party stands for things and politicians who campaign under the party banner are expected to support their party on all levels. Elected politicians are expected to vote the way the party leadership calls for, even if they themselves are against the party position. In which case, it makes sense for the selection of nominees be limited to party members, in order to insure that the nominee thinks the way the party rank and file do. Allowing independents and opposition party people to vote in party primaries dilutes the party members vote and allows the election of wishywashy or even hostile thinking nominees.
The strongest argument for open primaries occurs in one party states. In a solid red or solid blue state, winning the primary is equivalent to winning the general election. In solid blue Massachusetts, winning the democratic primary means you will take office a few months later. So members of the opposition party cry out for votes in the only election that really matters, the dominant party primary.
Arguments for closed primaries are thus. An American political party is more than just a bunch of voters. The party stands for things and politicians who campaign under the party banner are expected to support their party on all levels. Elected politicians are expected to vote the way the party leadership calls for, even if they themselves are against the party position. In which case, it makes sense for the selection of nominees be limited to party members, in order to insure that the nominee thinks the way the party rank and file do. Allowing independents and opposition party people to vote in party primaries dilutes the party members vote and allows the election of wishywashy or even hostile thinking nominees.
The strongest argument for open primaries occurs in one party states. In a solid red or solid blue state, winning the primary is equivalent to winning the general election. In solid blue Massachusetts, winning the democratic primary means you will take office a few months later. So members of the opposition party cry out for votes in the only election that really matters, the dominant party primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)