Scary. Hacker takes over a new Chrysler wirelessly.

Slashdot posted this.  The perp claims to have gained control of most of the Chrysler's systems, including the brakes, remotely by wireless. 
    I was thinking about getting a new car, as my 2003 Mercury is rusting out.  Do I want to buy something that hackers can take over remotely?  All the hacker has to do is give a playful little touch of the gas or the brakes while I'm going up three mile hill in a snowstorm to put me in the ditch.  PITA. 
   Actually, this points to atrociously bad design on Chrysler's part.  They have forgotten the principle of modularity.  Each module of the system (brakes, steering, suspension, engine etc) should be modular, stand alone, so that should other systems fail, it will keep on working, because it is not connected.  Clearly the designers of this car were hooking stuff together just for the fun of it.   There is no reason for the car computers to have any connections to the brakes.  I want my brakes to go on when I press the brake pedal, and for no other reason.  I don't want to give a malfunctioning microprocessor under the hood a chance to screw up my brakes. 

Terrorism or a Nutcase running around loose ?

The horrible shootings in Chattanooga are still on the top of the TV news.  Most of the commentary is aimed at convincing people that the shootings are Islamic terrorism.  Strongest evidence for this view is the shooter's thoroughly Islamic name.  
Question:   Suppose the shooter is just another nutcase who should have been in a booby hatch? Like the Charleston shooter.  Is the problem ISIS terror or our lack of mental health facilities? 

Guts.

I was assigned to a F-105 fighter bomber wing flying out of Korat Thailand during the Viet Nam war.  The day I arrived on base, we lost a Thud in combat.  For the next 90 days, my wing lost a plane every single day.  We saved some of the pilots, (never enough, but better than nothing).  Despite the risks from AAA, SAM, MIGS, and the unreliability of late 1950's jets, twice a day the pilots climbed into the cockpits and took off for North Viet Nam (route pack 6 we called it).  That took real guts.
  John McCain was shot down in the year I was over there.  He was flying off aircraft carriers which is even more dangerous than operating off the 10,000 foot concrete runway we had at Korat.
  I heard The Donald had spoken disparagingly of John McCain the other day.  I don't approve.  In fact, it makes me think that the The Donald shoots off his mouth too much to be President of the US. 

Cloudy, with a chance of greenies

The greenie's argument for global warming is based on computer models.  We know how much energy the Sun pours onto the earth. (1345 Watts/sqm * area of the earth = 1.78 *10 **17 Watts)  We know that the earth's temperature has remained reasonable steady thruout geological time.  That means the earth has to throw off, by infrared radiation, or reflection the same amount of energy.  If it didn't, the temperature would go up (or down).  
   Clouds are an important factor.  Anyone who has stood on the beach in a bathing suit and felt the chill when a cloud goes in front of the  Sun will have no problem believing that clouds cool the earth, by reflecting sunlight back into space.  Less well known, unless you live in the north, clouds warm the earth.  A clear winter night will get extremely cold, (-20 F) whereas a cloudy night will stay at +20F.  On clear nights, the earth will emit infra red radiation, which travels up and away to interstellar space.  This energy loss cools the world.  On cloudy nights, the same infrared radiation strikes the cloud, warming it, and the air it floats in, and conserving the heat.
   Which effect is stronger?  I have never seen any discussion of that. I don't think anyone knows.  What's more, it is generally assumed that a rise in global temperature will increase evaporation of water, increasing cloud coverage.  If increasing clouds cool the earth, fine, that will limit the temperature rise.  If increasing clouds warm the earth, hang onto your hats, as the earth warms, the clouds increase,which increases the warming.  Bad. 
   But, until the effect of clouds is understood, and programmed into the computer models, they are worthless.  Without an accurate treatment of cloudiness, the model's results will bear no resemblance to reality.
    And those claiming "the science is settled" are peddling ideology, not science.  
  

Trump calls for arming our armed services

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.  

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. 

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.