I Netflixed Season 1 a year or two ago. It was OK, a fantasy story that borrowed from both Game of Thrones and Tolkien. Season 2 just turned up on Netflix and I watched the whole season. Things have changed a bit. Handsome boyish hero, Wil, has got a new and more becoming hair cut. We also see some broad shoulders, narrow hips and six pack abs, making him more of a hunk than he was in season 1. Good chick Amberle mostly appears in dream sequences. Makes me think I missed catching her death somewhere. In season 1 she had a magic talisman that she was trying to take somewhere. She doesn't talk about that in season 2. Bad Chick, Eretria has come over to the good side and she is helping Wil as much as possible. Her highway bandit father does not appear this season. Both Good Chick and Bad Chick still dress alike, in riding leathers which show their figures to advantage, and they still look alike. A couple of new good looking girls show up, one is Alenon's daughter, not quite sure what the other one is. Nobody ever addresses anyone by name on stage, making it difficult to follow the story. At least the cameraman knows enough to turn the lights on before filming, and the soundman does a fairly good job.
Season 2 lacks plot, I was unable to understand what the heroes were trying to do. It is entertaining to watch, the characters are all good looking and interesting, but I had no idea what was going on.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018
Why capitalism is superior to Communism/Socialism
To put it crudely, capitalism works and makes us all rich. Communism/Socialism is about equal sharing of misery [and control of everything by the government]. Years ago I did Friends Service Committee work weekends in darkest Philadelphia. That neighborhood was poor by American standards, no doubt about it. But everyone had decent clothes (important in a Philadelphia winter) color TV, plenty of heat in their homes, and nobody looked undernourished. Some years later, on duty over seas, I saw plenty of people who were a lot worse off than that Philly slum. In short, capitalism produces better living conditions in city slums than either Thailand or the Philippines did thru out the country.
What makes capitalism so productive? Answer: Bunches of entrepreneurs who build factories, housing, electric grids, aircraft, telephone networks, trade commodities, buy and sell everything and anything, open mines, drill oil wells, irrigate desert lands, build railroads, and in general create wealth.
What does a society have to do to get capitalism working for them? First off, the society needs to create a rule of law that protects private property from seizure by warlords, political bosses, competitors, gangs, the EPA, and other assorted nogoodnicks. Entrepreneurs are motivated by the money they can make, and the social standing that successful entrepreneurs enjoy. If everything they create can be swiped in a few hours by some thugs, it is intensely discouraging to the ripped off entrepreneur. He/she is likely to be discouraged and give up trying, or to pick up stakes and immigrate to America. So, the society that wants the benefits of capitalism has to protect the capitalists from all the various sorts of bandits who will otherwise rob them blind.
Next comes defense. Nothing wipes out more capital and capitalists than an invading army. It took the American South a hundred years to recover from the devastation of the Civil War. One thing that allowed capitalism to flourish in England was the English Channel and the Royal Navy. They have prevented invasion of England ever since 1066. And effective defense requires enough patriotism in military age citizens to enlist in the armed services, or at least, not resist draft notices with violence.
And now we come down to freedom. Freedom to set prices and wages in response to market forces. Freedom of workers to change jobs for better wages, and move about the country to take the best paying jobs available. Freedom to form unions.
And probably a few other things. I am not an economist and so a few things probably escape me.
It would help if we taught our children that capitalism makes everyone rich. I note that a couple of recent surveys found that millennials prefer communism/socialism. What kind of schools did they go to?
What makes capitalism so productive? Answer: Bunches of entrepreneurs who build factories, housing, electric grids, aircraft, telephone networks, trade commodities, buy and sell everything and anything, open mines, drill oil wells, irrigate desert lands, build railroads, and in general create wealth.
What does a society have to do to get capitalism working for them? First off, the society needs to create a rule of law that protects private property from seizure by warlords, political bosses, competitors, gangs, the EPA, and other assorted nogoodnicks. Entrepreneurs are motivated by the money they can make, and the social standing that successful entrepreneurs enjoy. If everything they create can be swiped in a few hours by some thugs, it is intensely discouraging to the ripped off entrepreneur. He/she is likely to be discouraged and give up trying, or to pick up stakes and immigrate to America. So, the society that wants the benefits of capitalism has to protect the capitalists from all the various sorts of bandits who will otherwise rob them blind.
Next comes defense. Nothing wipes out more capital and capitalists than an invading army. It took the American South a hundred years to recover from the devastation of the Civil War. One thing that allowed capitalism to flourish in England was the English Channel and the Royal Navy. They have prevented invasion of England ever since 1066. And effective defense requires enough patriotism in military age citizens to enlist in the armed services, or at least, not resist draft notices with violence.
And now we come down to freedom. Freedom to set prices and wages in response to market forces. Freedom of workers to change jobs for better wages, and move about the country to take the best paying jobs available. Freedom to form unions.
And probably a few other things. I am not an economist and so a few things probably escape me.
It would help if we taught our children that capitalism makes everyone rich. I note that a couple of recent surveys found that millennials prefer communism/socialism. What kind of schools did they go to?
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Self Driving Cars: Would you ride in one?
Or would you buy one? Long article in the Wall St Journal this Saturday about self driving cars, relations between Silicon Valley high tech and Detroit car makers. Gist of article, Detroit ignored self driving cars until very recently, and now wants in.
Possibly, or perhaps not, the technology will mature to the point where the car's sensors (radar? TV cameras? lidar?) are good enough to detect the road, the shoulder, the center strip, and ignore the humongous radar returns from large signs, detect pedestrians, bicyclists, deer, objects fallen off trucks, and other cars all well enough to avoid collisions. And can handle driving after dark, in the rain, and handle snow safely. Assume that the self driving car will not attempt passing on two lane roads. Assume that the self driver keeps acceleration, steering and braking gentle enough to avoid panicking passengers. And it has mastered things like parallel parking, and pulling up to the gas pumps without bending a fender. All of these are stiff technical challenges that today's self driving car cannot meet, yet.
But assume they do perfect the self driving car. Would you ride in one, in city traffic? Would you feel comfortable riding in one? Would you buy one with your own money, even if the self driving equipment were fairly cheap? I wouldn't. I enjoy driving, been doing it for years, and feel best when I am at the wheel. Even with one of my own grown children at the wheel, I get tense. Eldest son is fairly good, but middle daughter and youngest son are down right scary. Will I feel better about turning the wheel over to a microprocessor?
I can see where the Ubers and Lyfts of the world would buy self driving cars. If they work, don't scare the passengers, and don't get into many expensive traffic accidents, they would eliminate paying drivers, which will do good things for the bottom line. But how many vehicles would Uber and Lyft buy, compared to the 10 million new cars sold each year to the general public in North America? Enough to interest Ford or GM?
Could it be cost effective for third party companies to sell and install self driving equipment in an otherwise standard car? Or is it cheaper and easier to build the self driving equipment into the car on the production line? I can remember when automobile air conditioning was just coming in. You could get air conditioning installed by third parties, but every one agreed that "factory air" was better. Will self driving equipment work out that way? Or not?
Possibly, or perhaps not, the technology will mature to the point where the car's sensors (radar? TV cameras? lidar?) are good enough to detect the road, the shoulder, the center strip, and ignore the humongous radar returns from large signs, detect pedestrians, bicyclists, deer, objects fallen off trucks, and other cars all well enough to avoid collisions. And can handle driving after dark, in the rain, and handle snow safely. Assume that the self driving car will not attempt passing on two lane roads. Assume that the self driver keeps acceleration, steering and braking gentle enough to avoid panicking passengers. And it has mastered things like parallel parking, and pulling up to the gas pumps without bending a fender. All of these are stiff technical challenges that today's self driving car cannot meet, yet.
But assume they do perfect the self driving car. Would you ride in one, in city traffic? Would you feel comfortable riding in one? Would you buy one with your own money, even if the self driving equipment were fairly cheap? I wouldn't. I enjoy driving, been doing it for years, and feel best when I am at the wheel. Even with one of my own grown children at the wheel, I get tense. Eldest son is fairly good, but middle daughter and youngest son are down right scary. Will I feel better about turning the wheel over to a microprocessor?
I can see where the Ubers and Lyfts of the world would buy self driving cars. If they work, don't scare the passengers, and don't get into many expensive traffic accidents, they would eliminate paying drivers, which will do good things for the bottom line. But how many vehicles would Uber and Lyft buy, compared to the 10 million new cars sold each year to the general public in North America? Enough to interest Ford or GM?
Could it be cost effective for third party companies to sell and install self driving equipment in an otherwise standard car? Or is it cheaper and easier to build the self driving equipment into the car on the production line? I can remember when automobile air conditioning was just coming in. You could get air conditioning installed by third parties, but every one agreed that "factory air" was better. Will self driving equipment work out that way? Or not?
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Gender & Ethic Studies profs earn more than peers???
According to Campus Reform colleges are paying professors of various "Studies" some $12,000 a year more than the average. Which is odd, seeing us how "Studies" majors are mostly unemployable when they graduate. My standard advice to college students is to decide what they want to do after graduation, and then pick a major that makes them employable in their chosen field. Why should colleges pay professors of a boutique course of study extra, when that course of study is an invitation to bankruptcy for any student foolish enough to major in it??
Monday, August 13, 2018
Aircraft don't have ignition keys
After Friday's joy riding/ joy flying story, where an airport maintenance guy took off with a medium sized turbo prop airliner, did some really decent stunt flying and then crashed it, killing himself, the TV newsies have been talking about why aircraft ought to have doors that lock and ignition keys.
Back in USAF, none of our aircraft had either. And the two alert birds were armed with nuclear weapons back in those days. We had a good chain link fence around the flight line, with a couple of gates. We had armed guards, air police, on the gates and more of them on the alert hanger. Everyone had to have a security badge to get onto the flight line. And, with just a few exceptions, like company tech reps, everyone had to be wearing Air Force uniform.
So, hearing that a guy with apparently employment, a security clearance, and experience moving aircraft was able to take off with an aircraft is not surprising. We might take a look at how he obtained his security clearance, but once he did, he could easily do what he did.
Back in USAF, none of our aircraft had either. And the two alert birds were armed with nuclear weapons back in those days. We had a good chain link fence around the flight line, with a couple of gates. We had armed guards, air police, on the gates and more of them on the alert hanger. Everyone had to have a security badge to get onto the flight line. And, with just a few exceptions, like company tech reps, everyone had to be wearing Air Force uniform.
So, hearing that a guy with apparently employment, a security clearance, and experience moving aircraft was able to take off with an aircraft is not surprising. We might take a look at how he obtained his security clearance, but once he did, he could easily do what he did.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
The NFL hasn't figured it out yet
The players are claiming a first amendment right to take a knee during the national anthem. They think they are advancing their political cause[s]. What they fail to understand is their fans, customers, see kneeling during the national anthem as pure disrespect for the flag, and the republic for which it stands. Gestures mean what people think they mean, not what you want them to mean.
We will see if the fans are sufficiently turned off to stop watching football on TV. I think the players are stupid not to understand that they cannot afford to anger their fans.
We will see if the fans are sufficiently turned off to stop watching football on TV. I think the players are stupid not to understand that they cannot afford to anger their fans.
Friday, August 10, 2018
Prevent Hacking the US Electric Grid
Been a lotta talk about this, in the Journal, on the internet, on TV. It works like this. Lots of stuff, generators, transformer banks, substations, and more are remote controlled. It saves money by eliminating expensive workers at each site. The remote controllers will accept remote commands such as "Start Up", "Shut Down", "Increase Voltage", "Change Transformer Taps", "Speed Up", and many more.
The cheapest communication link is the public internet, it's practically free. And the public switched telephone network is nearly as cheap although slower. Trouble is, when you set all your generators and other equipment to accept commands from the public internet, that means every hacker in the world can send commands to your equipment. There are some codes and addresses and computerish languages to learn but it isn't all that hard.
The solution is to prohibit use of the public internet by the utilities. These are power companies, they own power poles, they have line men, and they can jolly well string fiber optic control lines on their own poles out to all their remote equipment. Hackers don't climb poles, to tap fiber optic lines. In addition to the hackers reluctance to leave their warm and cozy computer rooms, fiber is tough to tap. You have to cut the glass fiber, insert an adder, bring your own fiber line all the way from your own computer, and then splice the two cut ends and your new line into the adder. Splicing fiber can be done but it's hard, few techs know how. A bad splice will block the light signal.
The various public utility commissions, all 50 states and the feds, need to post regulations prohibiting any kind of remote control over the public internet or the telephone network and demand private fiber optic control lines owned by the utility company. This will hackers from ordering all the generators in the country to shut down some dark and snowy night.
The cheapest communication link is the public internet, it's practically free. And the public switched telephone network is nearly as cheap although slower. Trouble is, when you set all your generators and other equipment to accept commands from the public internet, that means every hacker in the world can send commands to your equipment. There are some codes and addresses and computerish languages to learn but it isn't all that hard.
The solution is to prohibit use of the public internet by the utilities. These are power companies, they own power poles, they have line men, and they can jolly well string fiber optic control lines on their own poles out to all their remote equipment. Hackers don't climb poles, to tap fiber optic lines. In addition to the hackers reluctance to leave their warm and cozy computer rooms, fiber is tough to tap. You have to cut the glass fiber, insert an adder, bring your own fiber line all the way from your own computer, and then splice the two cut ends and your new line into the adder. Splicing fiber can be done but it's hard, few techs know how. A bad splice will block the light signal.
The various public utility commissions, all 50 states and the feds, need to post regulations prohibiting any kind of remote control over the public internet or the telephone network and demand private fiber optic control lines owned by the utility company. This will hackers from ordering all the generators in the country to shut down some dark and snowy night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)