He managed to avoid a pissing match with anyone. Getting into a pissing match always makes you look petty. He was glib, never at a loss for words. He sounded reasonable.
He mostly managed to avoid saying anything of substance. Lot of those "use-up-airtime-and-say-nothing" phrases. He said he would be OK with regulation but never said just what sort in regulation he would favor. He did put on coat and tie for the TV hearings. He got full time live coverage on Fox, he was on for hours, without any of those network voice overs calling him a crumb bum. He avoided making any yes or no answers.
My assessment. Zuckerberg is slick. Made a few mea culpea's. Avoided getting pinned down on anything. Probably plans on keeping Facebook on the same path it has been on. And his stock is up 4%.
I plan to continues to limit my Facebook posts to pictures of my cat, pictures of my children and grandchildren, pictures of snow storms, comments about the weather. When I get the urge to make a political rant, I'll do it on this blog.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Regulating Facebook???
Supposing that our noble Congresscritters could agree on a bill, and that Trump would sign it, how would that work? Facebook's data resides on Facebook's computers, under the control of Facebook IT people. Even if they gave the regulators the run of their server farm, how would the regulators be able to find anything, change anything, or even figure out was was happening? Inquiring minds want to know.
Me, I don't think it can happen. Who gets to see how much of Facebook's data trove is solely under Facebook's control, and Facebook can keep all transactions secret. Pass all the laws you like, hire as many well paid regulators as you like, and Facebook is still running the show, the way it wants to run it.
If I knew of a competing website that offered the chit chat and picture posting opportunities that Facebook does, I'd switch, and talk all my facebook friends into following me. Instagram perhaps? However, at this time, building up a competitor against Facebook' s market dominance would be tough.
Me, I don't think it can happen. Who gets to see how much of Facebook's data trove is solely under Facebook's control, and Facebook can keep all transactions secret. Pass all the laws you like, hire as many well paid regulators as you like, and Facebook is still running the show, the way it wants to run it.
If I knew of a competing website that offered the chit chat and picture posting opportunities that Facebook does, I'd switch, and talk all my facebook friends into following me. Instagram perhaps? However, at this time, building up a competitor against Facebook' s market dominance would be tough.
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Light machine guns of the world
Modern infantry tactics are based on the squad, a dozen men with one light machine gun. In action the squad moves forward until resistance is encountered. At which time the machine gun is set up, and under cover of its fire, the riflemen advanced to the next likely piece of cover. Then the riflemen provided covering fire while the machine gun is moved up to the new position. By WWII, the old close order tactics, which go back as far as the Greeks at Marathon, had given way in all armies to the modern tactic.
The light machine guns in question varied from army to army. But they all fired the standard rifle round of the period, which was 30 caliber (7.62 mm) and a lot more powerful than modern military rounds such used by weapons like the US M16. The weapons all fired from the open bolt, a machine gun design feature that leaves the breech open after firing stops, allowing air to circulate thru the hot gun barrel for cooling. It also avoids leaving a live round in a red hot chamber where it might cook off from the heat. The down side to the open bolt design is the slight jar when the bolt goes forward and chambers a round which can throw the gun slightly off target, a minor concern, only of importance when firing single rounds, sniper fashion.
Since the LMG was back packed into action, light weight was very important. The American Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was the lightest at 15.5 pounds (unloaded). Figure another pound and a half for a loaded 20 round magazine. The heaviest was the Russian DPM at 26.9 pounds., with the German MG42 right behind at 25 pounds.
Most of them (BAR, BREN, and DPM) fired at 500-600 rounds per minute, which was considered the optimum rate of fire by authorities of the period. Those authorities felt higher rates of fire merely wasted ammunition. The exception was the German MG42 which fired at double that, 1200 rounds per minute, which gave the German gun a unique and scary sound.
The BAR with a 20 round magazine, held the least ammunition. The BAR magazine was located on the bottom of the weapon which made swapping magazines somewhat awkward. The British BREN gun had a 30 round magazine on top of the gun, making magazine swaps easier. The Russian DPM had a 47 round drum magazine on top. The German MG42 was belt fed, allowing long sustained bursts of automatic fire.
The light machine guns in question varied from army to army. But they all fired the standard rifle round of the period, which was 30 caliber (7.62 mm) and a lot more powerful than modern military rounds such used by weapons like the US M16. The weapons all fired from the open bolt, a machine gun design feature that leaves the breech open after firing stops, allowing air to circulate thru the hot gun barrel for cooling. It also avoids leaving a live round in a red hot chamber where it might cook off from the heat. The down side to the open bolt design is the slight jar when the bolt goes forward and chambers a round which can throw the gun slightly off target, a minor concern, only of importance when firing single rounds, sniper fashion.
Since the LMG was back packed into action, light weight was very important. The American Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was the lightest at 15.5 pounds (unloaded). Figure another pound and a half for a loaded 20 round magazine. The heaviest was the Russian DPM at 26.9 pounds., with the German MG42 right behind at 25 pounds.
Most of them (BAR, BREN, and DPM) fired at 500-600 rounds per minute, which was considered the optimum rate of fire by authorities of the period. Those authorities felt higher rates of fire merely wasted ammunition. The exception was the German MG42 which fired at double that, 1200 rounds per minute, which gave the German gun a unique and scary sound.
The BAR with a 20 round magazine, held the least ammunition. The BAR magazine was located on the bottom of the weapon which made swapping magazines somewhat awkward. The British BREN gun had a 30 round magazine on top of the gun, making magazine swaps easier. The Russian DPM had a 47 round drum magazine on top. The German MG42 was belt fed, allowing long sustained bursts of automatic fire.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Ivanhoe, 1982 version
The old 1952 version, with Robert Taylor and Elizabeth Taylor has been a favorite movie ever since I saw it as a child in the old Cinema at Shopper's World in Framingham MA better than 60 years ago. So, when I saw the 1982 remake on Netflix I ordered it, thinking it wouldn't measure up to the old classic.
Well, surprise. It was pretty good. It has James Mason as Isaac of York, John Rhys-Davies as Front de Boeuf, and Anthony Andrews as Ivanhoe himself. Andrews is a good looking hunk. "Production values" are first rate, costumes, sets, locations. Sound is good, I could hear all the dialog. The cameraman used a tripod, no annoying shake the camera shots, and he turned on the lights for filming. They used a real medieval castle for Torquilstone. In this version, Rowena comes off a very cute, just as cute as Rebecca of York. The story gets changed around some from the 1952 version, but it doesn't seem to hurt anything. I read the book once, but that was a long time ago and I don't remember anymore just how the book went. Plus, movies are a different medium than books, and some changes are often required to make a good movie from a book.
It's far better than a BBC remake of some years ago. The BBC got on a medieval realism kick. Everyone's costume was homespun brown or butternut, making it extremely difficult to tell who was who. Except for Isaac of York's silly looking straw hat, costumes for this one were convincing enough for me. I'm not an expert on medieval fashions, so I'm not the last word, but I say they were plenty good enough for the purposes of a movie.
They changed Ivanhoe's final duel with Bois Gilbert. In the 1952 flick, Bois Gilbert used mace and chain, Ivanhoe used an axe (from horseback no less) When the duel was over, my younger brother said, very seriously, "The guy with the axe always wins." In this version, both fighters use swords, and we see that Ivanhoe is not fully recovered from wounds received from tournament. Bois Gilbert nearly kills him, but Ivanhoe gets lucky and pulls out a win at the last minute.
Anyhow, if you are into medieval romantic movies, with lots of action, Ivanhoe is good, either the original 1952 flick or the 1982 remake for TV flick.
Well, surprise. It was pretty good. It has James Mason as Isaac of York, John Rhys-Davies as Front de Boeuf, and Anthony Andrews as Ivanhoe himself. Andrews is a good looking hunk. "Production values" are first rate, costumes, sets, locations. Sound is good, I could hear all the dialog. The cameraman used a tripod, no annoying shake the camera shots, and he turned on the lights for filming. They used a real medieval castle for Torquilstone. In this version, Rowena comes off a very cute, just as cute as Rebecca of York. The story gets changed around some from the 1952 version, but it doesn't seem to hurt anything. I read the book once, but that was a long time ago and I don't remember anymore just how the book went. Plus, movies are a different medium than books, and some changes are often required to make a good movie from a book.
It's far better than a BBC remake of some years ago. The BBC got on a medieval realism kick. Everyone's costume was homespun brown or butternut, making it extremely difficult to tell who was who. Except for Isaac of York's silly looking straw hat, costumes for this one were convincing enough for me. I'm not an expert on medieval fashions, so I'm not the last word, but I say they were plenty good enough for the purposes of a movie.
They changed Ivanhoe's final duel with Bois Gilbert. In the 1952 flick, Bois Gilbert used mace and chain, Ivanhoe used an axe (from horseback no less) When the duel was over, my younger brother said, very seriously, "The guy with the axe always wins." In this version, both fighters use swords, and we see that Ivanhoe is not fully recovered from wounds received from tournament. Bois Gilbert nearly kills him, but Ivanhoe gets lucky and pulls out a win at the last minute.
Anyhow, if you are into medieval romantic movies, with lots of action, Ivanhoe is good, either the original 1952 flick or the 1982 remake for TV flick.
Friday, April 6, 2018
CAFE Clash
Can you pass a law that will make cars get 50 mpg? Well yes, but don't expect the cars to comply. The only thing that will do 50 mpg is a motorcycle. And, much as I like bikes, I owned one for years, I don't want to ride a bike to work in a New England snow storm. Or bring the groceries home on one. Or take the kids to youth league soccer on one. Or bring anything home from the lumber yard on a bike. Once you get married, you need a vehicle big enough to hold you, the wife, the kids, the luggage, the picnic lunch, and the skis. And a real vehicle like that is never gonna do 50 mpg. You are doing well if you can get 25 out of it.
The Greenies, and the lefties, are crying a lot of tears now that Trump's EPA is gonna dump the magical 50 mpg by 2025 rule. It's magical because only magic will produce such a vehicle. In fact, even the EPA understood that nobody could reach that mileage in the real world. They offered incentives like giving all your cars a sizeable boost in mileage rating if they would run on alcohol. It was such a juicy bennie, that was I running a car company I'd tell production to make 100% of my vehicles run on alcohol. It isn't hard, all you have to do is select fuel system hoses and gaskets and such (elastomers) that can withstand alcohol. And add some code to the engine microprocessor programming to richen up the mixture when running on alcohol since alcohol doesn't provide nearly as much heat energy as gasoline does. And presto, magic happens, the EPA says my vehicle fleet, my CAFE, gets a substantial boost.
In actual fact, the car companies have plenty of market incentive to build the best fuel economy they can. It sells. Good fuel economy is as important as styling to customers. We ought to shut down the whole CAFE bureaucracy, lay off all the bureaucrats, save a little money, and get on with it.
The Greenies, and the lefties, are crying a lot of tears now that Trump's EPA is gonna dump the magical 50 mpg by 2025 rule. It's magical because only magic will produce such a vehicle. In fact, even the EPA understood that nobody could reach that mileage in the real world. They offered incentives like giving all your cars a sizeable boost in mileage rating if they would run on alcohol. It was such a juicy bennie, that was I running a car company I'd tell production to make 100% of my vehicles run on alcohol. It isn't hard, all you have to do is select fuel system hoses and gaskets and such (elastomers) that can withstand alcohol. And add some code to the engine microprocessor programming to richen up the mixture when running on alcohol since alcohol doesn't provide nearly as much heat energy as gasoline does. And presto, magic happens, the EPA says my vehicle fleet, my CAFE, gets a substantial boost.
In actual fact, the car companies have plenty of market incentive to build the best fuel economy they can. It sells. Good fuel economy is as important as styling to customers. We ought to shut down the whole CAFE bureaucracy, lay off all the bureaucrats, save a little money, and get on with it.
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Does your Firefox have a memory leak?
Mine does. I'm running V52.7.3 Firefox on Win XP. Start up Firefox and check Task Manager, and Firefox will be using 168K of RAM. Let it run for a while, visit some websites, do whatever, and notice that it starts running slower. Takes longer to open a new site, to switch from tab to tab. Check Task Manager and find Firefox is using 500K and more of RAM.
Something like Firefox which needs large and unpredictable amounts of RAM, is built to acquire the needed RAM from Windows, making system calls to get it. And when finished, Firefox is supposed to return the borrowed RAM to Windows. Common coding error, program forgets to return no longer needed RAM. This is called a memory leak. I think Firefox has one. At least in the 32 bit XP version. I have a newer computer running Win10 that doesn't seem to have the problem.
Something like Firefox which needs large and unpredictable amounts of RAM, is built to acquire the needed RAM from Windows, making system calls to get it. And when finished, Firefox is supposed to return the borrowed RAM to Windows. Common coding error, program forgets to return no longer needed RAM. This is called a memory leak. I think Firefox has one. At least in the 32 bit XP version. I have a newer computer running Win10 that doesn't seem to have the problem.
We need the Line Item Veto
But we are unlikely to ever get it. The line item veto would allow the president to go thru pork laden spending bills and veto individual items without killing the whole thing. The "everything including the kitchen sink" policies of our Congress make the line item veto necessary. Congress allows absolutely anything and everything to be included in any bill, whether it has any logical connection with the bill's purpose or not. For instance they tried (and failed) to tack an immigration reform (DACA) onto the omnibus funding bill. Since the omnibus funding bill was a "must pass" bill (the government shuts down if they don't pass it) evry Congresscritter made sure to add his pet piece of pork (federal spending in his district) to the bill. Result, a lot of wasteful spending. If the president could go thru the omnibus spending bill and veto the more offensive pieces of pork, we could reduce federal spending by a lot.
Line item veto is unlikely to ever happen. Congresscritters love their pork. The thought that a president could veto a bit of pork they had worked hard to get into the funding bill just frosts Congresscritters. Since a line item veto requires at least an act of Congress, and perhaps a constitutional amendment, the Congresscritters can stop it by simply voting against it, should it ever come up for a vote. And Congress has plenty of file 13's entomb unwanted legislation, killing it with out having to go on record by voting against it.
Line item veto is unlikely to ever happen. Congresscritters love their pork. The thought that a president could veto a bit of pork they had worked hard to get into the funding bill just frosts Congresscritters. Since a line item veto requires at least an act of Congress, and perhaps a constitutional amendment, the Congresscritters can stop it by simply voting against it, should it ever come up for a vote. And Congress has plenty of file 13's entomb unwanted legislation, killing it with out having to go on record by voting against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)