Haven't been to Portsmouth in fifteen years or more. And then only to Strawberrie Banke, a historical village setting. I needed to buy a few new clothes, the khaki's and sports shirts bought at Good Will Industries years ago are wearing out, and Good Will Industries has downgraded itself below my fairly low standards. Portsmouth has down some good work on reviving the down town into a tourist trap. Lotta nice side walk eateries. They had plenty of tourists hiking around the down town. Parking is tight on a Saturday, I finally had to use my credit card to pay off a parking meter at $1.75 an hour. Google maps showed nearly a dozen men's clothing stores all on a three block run of Congress St. It must have been a bad year for men's clothing. Only two of the stores that showed on Google maps were still there. One was a unisex place (not my style ) and the other was a women's clothing place, (also not my style).
Infrastructure was good. I drove down on secondary roads, and they were all in good shape, fresh black asphalt, easy curves, generous sight lines, broad shoulders. Makes me think the infrastructure catastrophe is limited to New York State. Real states like NH are keeping their roads in good shape.
And I'm glad I retired in upstate NH where the traffic is light. Traffic around Manchester was thick. There was some kinda hangup in Concord that had southbound traffic on 193 backded up to Boscawen by 2 PM. Which is early for people to start for home after a weekend in upstate NH. That one made in onto the air on WBZ.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Friday, July 29, 2016
Wanna bet hacked DNC computers were running Windows?
Windows, Bill Gate's gift to civilization, is like Swiss cheese. It's got so many holes that high school kids can hack into it. Far as I am concerned, running Windows is hanging a hack me sign on your fanny.
If you care about security, don't run Windows. Run Linux or Unix or Macintosh. They are all a hundred times more secure than any flavor of Windows.
If you care about security, don't run Windows. Run Linux or Unix or Macintosh. They are all a hundred times more secure than any flavor of Windows.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Debating WWII grand strategy
Nice thick new book, 2016, entitled Commander in Chief, FDR's battle with Churchill. Good photo of FDR on the dust jacket. To read the book, you would think Roosevelt and Churchill spent the entire war squabbling over strategy.
From the get go, the Americans realized that the only way to defeat Germany was to land a huge army, on European soil, as close to Germany as possible, defeat the large and effective German army, drive for Berlin, and hang Hitler. This kind of American thinking goes back to US Grant and the Civil War. Grant understood that the North had vastly greater reserves of manpower (and everything else that counted) than the South. Once installed as commander in chief, Grant ordered the Army of the Potomac to march on Richmond, the southern capital. Robert E. Lee put up a stout defense. But after each bloody battle, Grant ordered his men forward and called up reinforcements. Grant knew he could absorb horrendous casualties and still beat Lee and win the war. It wasn't elegant, but it did work.
So the American thinking ran toward, "if you run into an obstacle, get a bigger hammer." And starting a few days after Pearl Harbor, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff became set upon the notion of a second front. They even talked about launching the second front in 1942. And in 1943. They were dead set against peripheral operations that drained men and material away from the main objective. Things finally came together in 1944 at D-day. In short it took two and a half years of preparation to build up the enormous force that triumphed in Normandy.
The British, who had suffered thru four years of trench warfare on the Western front, suffered the Germans to drive them into the sea at Dunkirk, and watched the Germans massacre the experimental raid on Dieppe, were not as sanguine as the Americans. Churchill himself had commanded a regiment on the Western front, he knew how bad that sort of fighting could be. Churchill was an imaginative guy, and he did a lot of thinking about ways to fight the Germans short of frontal attack across the Channel. He came up with a bunch of them. North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Greece were all Churchill ideas. I daresay there were others that didn't make the history books.
In 1942, it was clear to Churchill, and he made it clear to Roosevelt who was inclined to listen to Churchill, that the Allies needed to do something against the Germans that year. It would have been politically impossible to spend the next two and a half years building up to D-day and not fighting the Germans anywhere. And, the newly raised American divisions were green as grass, they needed some actual combat experience to become effective against the Germans. Churchill proposed the Americans land an army in North Africa that year, drive east toward Montgomery's 8th Army, and crush the Axis forces between them. In this case, Roosevelt had to go against the strong opposition of General Marshall, Admiral King and the US joint chiefs. He did it, issued them a direct order, something Roosevelt seldom did. And it worked. The Germans were cornered in Tunisia, forced to surrender, and the Allies took as many prisoners of war as the Russians took at Stalingrad some weeks before.
This smashing success made the British even more reluctant to bet everything on D-day. For the rest of the war, conference after conference was held, with the British pushing for more peripheral operations and the Americans pressing for "do D-day now". The Americans finally got their way, and D-day happened on the 6th of June 1944. And it worked.
Nigel Hamilton goes over all of this in exhaustive detail. He paints it as a struggle between Roosevelt and Churchill, and makes it sound so bitter that you wonder how the Alliance stayed together. And he makes it sound like a whole new interpretation of history, which it isn't. The debates between the British and the Americans are well documented and part of the generally accepted and understood history of WWII.
From the get go, the Americans realized that the only way to defeat Germany was to land a huge army, on European soil, as close to Germany as possible, defeat the large and effective German army, drive for Berlin, and hang Hitler. This kind of American thinking goes back to US Grant and the Civil War. Grant understood that the North had vastly greater reserves of manpower (and everything else that counted) than the South. Once installed as commander in chief, Grant ordered the Army of the Potomac to march on Richmond, the southern capital. Robert E. Lee put up a stout defense. But after each bloody battle, Grant ordered his men forward and called up reinforcements. Grant knew he could absorb horrendous casualties and still beat Lee and win the war. It wasn't elegant, but it did work.
So the American thinking ran toward, "if you run into an obstacle, get a bigger hammer." And starting a few days after Pearl Harbor, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff became set upon the notion of a second front. They even talked about launching the second front in 1942. And in 1943. They were dead set against peripheral operations that drained men and material away from the main objective. Things finally came together in 1944 at D-day. In short it took two and a half years of preparation to build up the enormous force that triumphed in Normandy.
The British, who had suffered thru four years of trench warfare on the Western front, suffered the Germans to drive them into the sea at Dunkirk, and watched the Germans massacre the experimental raid on Dieppe, were not as sanguine as the Americans. Churchill himself had commanded a regiment on the Western front, he knew how bad that sort of fighting could be. Churchill was an imaginative guy, and he did a lot of thinking about ways to fight the Germans short of frontal attack across the Channel. He came up with a bunch of them. North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Greece were all Churchill ideas. I daresay there were others that didn't make the history books.
In 1942, it was clear to Churchill, and he made it clear to Roosevelt who was inclined to listen to Churchill, that the Allies needed to do something against the Germans that year. It would have been politically impossible to spend the next two and a half years building up to D-day and not fighting the Germans anywhere. And, the newly raised American divisions were green as grass, they needed some actual combat experience to become effective against the Germans. Churchill proposed the Americans land an army in North Africa that year, drive east toward Montgomery's 8th Army, and crush the Axis forces between them. In this case, Roosevelt had to go against the strong opposition of General Marshall, Admiral King and the US joint chiefs. He did it, issued them a direct order, something Roosevelt seldom did. And it worked. The Germans were cornered in Tunisia, forced to surrender, and the Allies took as many prisoners of war as the Russians took at Stalingrad some weeks before.
This smashing success made the British even more reluctant to bet everything on D-day. For the rest of the war, conference after conference was held, with the British pushing for more peripheral operations and the Americans pressing for "do D-day now". The Americans finally got their way, and D-day happened on the 6th of June 1944. And it worked.
Nigel Hamilton goes over all of this in exhaustive detail. He paints it as a struggle between Roosevelt and Churchill, and makes it sound so bitter that you wonder how the Alliance stayed together. And he makes it sound like a whole new interpretation of history, which it isn't. The debates between the British and the Americans are well documented and part of the generally accepted and understood history of WWII.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
The Russians are going, the Russians are going.
The yuge burst of Russian page views has died down. I am back to my usual 70 odd pageviews a day, with the bulk of them from the US. Dunno what happened, but it was a wild ride while it lasted.
Trans Pacific Partnership
Both candidates have done a bit of badmouthing of this deal. This sounds strange coming from The Donald. Republicans are traditionally in favor of free trade. But, since the details of TPP have never appeared in the public press, it's impossible to form an real opinion about it. If it lowers other country's tariffs against American products, it's a good thing. America's tariffs are already pretty low, which accounts for all the Chinese product in Wal Mart, and all those Japanese and Korean cars on American roads. With the exception of sugar, I doubt that American tariffs can be reduced much, I mean you can't go below zero can you?
The scary part is what we don't know. Rumor says the TPP covers a lot more than tariffs. Perhaps equal pay for all countries, or a world wide minimum wage. Patent and copyright protection for 75 years. Fixed exchange rates. World wide safety standards, world wide green house gas regulations, universal freight rates, gun control, universal labor laws.
Since the text is secret, it could be anything. I assume the Obama administration is keeping it secret to damp down opposition. Or, perhaps the newsies are so ignorant of nearly everything, that they don't want to publish it.
Could be anything. But discussion of TPP would be more meaningful if we knew what was in it.
The scary part is what we don't know. Rumor says the TPP covers a lot more than tariffs. Perhaps equal pay for all countries, or a world wide minimum wage. Patent and copyright protection for 75 years. Fixed exchange rates. World wide safety standards, world wide green house gas regulations, universal freight rates, gun control, universal labor laws.
Since the text is secret, it could be anything. I assume the Obama administration is keeping it secret to damp down opposition. Or, perhaps the newsies are so ignorant of nearly everything, that they don't want to publish it.
Could be anything. But discussion of TPP would be more meaningful if we knew what was in it.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Russians hacked the DNC?
I'm hearing on NPR, Fox, and the 'Net a theory that the Russians hacked the DNC emails and released them on Wikileaks to help The Donald.
Why in the world would they do that?
Hillary is a known quantity. She is not very smart, she can be bought, she won't make waves. She has had four years as Secretary of State to demonstrate her incompetence in foreign affairs. If I was Putin, that's exactly the kind of person I would like as president of the only surviving superpower.
Trump on the other hand, might do anything. America is an exceptional country, and with imaginative leadership it can do almost anything. Under mediocre leadership (Hillary) nothing much will happen. But under charismatic leadership America won WWII, developed nuclear weapons, traveled to the Moon, eliminated polio, and gave its people the best standard of living in the world. Under Trump, America could be an irresistible adversary to Russian expansion worldwide. Why risk that? Far better to have a mediocrity who will let things slide as they have been doing.
So I don't believe the Russians wanted to help Trump.
Why in the world would they do that?
Hillary is a known quantity. She is not very smart, she can be bought, she won't make waves. She has had four years as Secretary of State to demonstrate her incompetence in foreign affairs. If I was Putin, that's exactly the kind of person I would like as president of the only surviving superpower.
Trump on the other hand, might do anything. America is an exceptional country, and with imaginative leadership it can do almost anything. Under mediocre leadership (Hillary) nothing much will happen. But under charismatic leadership America won WWII, developed nuclear weapons, traveled to the Moon, eliminated polio, and gave its people the best standard of living in the world. Under Trump, America could be an irresistible adversary to Russian expansion worldwide. Why risk that? Far better to have a mediocrity who will let things slide as they have been doing.
So I don't believe the Russians wanted to help Trump.
Monday, July 25, 2016
You would think they would know that Email is public
Debby Wasserman Schultz and most of the top brass at DNC are dumb enough to put things in email that they would never want to become public. They are too ignorant to know that email ain't private, ain't secure, any thing you put in email can turn up on Wikileaks, or the front page of the newspapers. This has been clear since Ollie North tried to erase his incriminating emails on the Iran Contra affair back in the Reagan administration. In Ollie's case, he deleted his emails all right, but efficient IT people at the While House had backed them up on mag tape, and produced them at the Congressional hearings. Bye bye Ollie.
I knew this soon as we got email at work, 30 odd years ago. Use email for stuff everyone wants to see, such as how to fix a circuit board, how to design with our company's parts, how good our product is. Don't email gripes, bugs, opinions of customers, anything uncomplimentary to anyone.
Talk face to face, out of doors or in a secure location, or use a payphone, or a cell phone from a moving car, when you are talking about bad or sensitive stuff. Never by email. Cause email ain't secure.
Debbie and company should have known this. She is stepping down, which will help the Democratic party. The Democrats will do better when they don't have a chuckle head running it.
I knew this soon as we got email at work, 30 odd years ago. Use email for stuff everyone wants to see, such as how to fix a circuit board, how to design with our company's parts, how good our product is. Don't email gripes, bugs, opinions of customers, anything uncomplimentary to anyone.
Talk face to face, out of doors or in a secure location, or use a payphone, or a cell phone from a moving car, when you are talking about bad or sensitive stuff. Never by email. Cause email ain't secure.
Debbie and company should have known this. She is stepping down, which will help the Democratic party. The Democrats will do better when they don't have a chuckle head running it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)