I'm three DVDs into it and it loosing its cool for me. The TV miniseries has run off the end of the George R.R. Martin books, which are decent and I have read them all. Now that the TV is running it's own course, independent of the books, I am loosing track of what's going on. The show's habit of never calling anyone by name makes things tougher. An actor will appear on screen, I will say to myself "This guy was in the show a while ago, but I cannot remember his/her name or what he did." Not knowing frustrates this viewer of the show.
Then things don't seem to ever get anywhere. Denarys is still leading the Dothraki toward invading Westeros. In six whole seasons she hasn't been able to get her Dothraki to the seashore, let alone boarding ship for Westeros. Arya is still wandering around looking for something to do. Brendan is still a paraplegic having visions that don't lead anywhere.
Then they killed off so many characters over the past seasons that they have decided to bring some back to life, by witchcraft and magic. Running out of talent I suppose. They bring Jon Snow back to life in an early scene, but they never spoke his name. The episode was half over before I decided it was Jon Snow and not his half brother Rob Stark.
And the camera man is still refusing to turn on the lights. Pure black scene follows pure black scene. Arya has gotten her self into a strange place where another girl her size takes some pleasure in beating the stuffing out of Arya with a quarterstaff. In the fight scenes both Arya and the other unnamed girl wear identical black ankle length dresses. The scenes are so dark, I can't tell Arya from her opponent.
Continuity is weak. The show has at least six story lines (Denarys and the Dothraki, Brenden, Sam Tarly and his wildling wife, Jaime and Cersei Lannister, and Tommin the new teenage king) They cut from one to story line another so fast there is no time to get anything accomplished, and we viewers get confused as to where we are. And if the rapid story line shifts don't confuse the viewers, they do flashbacks and dream sequences.
Anyone know if they will do a season 7?
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
The news, All Trump, all the time
Fox News and the Wall St Journal cover Trump every day, all day. Nothing else in the whole wide world gets any coverage. And most of the Trump coverage is repetitive and negative. I've heard every kind of anti-Trump trash talk there is. I don't need to hear more of the same.
I propose the newsies cut back the Trump coverage to maybe 10% and go out and cover some other stories. For instance the Iraqi Army, backed by USAF and US special forces has taken half of Mosul and is planning to assault the other half. All the coverage I have seen is from independents like ITV. No American newsies are on scene, talking to the troops and the locals, and using a Mosul byline.
How about some coverage from the South China sea, maybe some close up video of Chinese gun and missile emplacement from a drone?
How about some live coverage from the Ukraine? Or Poland where we deployed a US Army tank brigade last month?
I'm tired of the all Trump, all the time news coverage. I want to see/hear what is going on in the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
I propose the newsies cut back the Trump coverage to maybe 10% and go out and cover some other stories. For instance the Iraqi Army, backed by USAF and US special forces has taken half of Mosul and is planning to assault the other half. All the coverage I have seen is from independents like ITV. No American newsies are on scene, talking to the troops and the locals, and using a Mosul byline.
How about some coverage from the South China sea, maybe some close up video of Chinese gun and missile emplacement from a drone?
How about some live coverage from the Ukraine? Or Poland where we deployed a US Army tank brigade last month?
I'm tired of the all Trump, all the time news coverage. I want to see/hear what is going on in the rest of the country and the rest of the world.
Words of the Weasel Part 48
"Substance" as in "substance abuse". Used by snowflakes who shrink from calling them druggies or drunkards. If you cannot name the problem, you cannot deal with it. And a good strong dose of social disapproval helps druggies kick their habit.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
What's with all this Russia talk by TV newsies?
First they make a big deal about the Russians hacking the DNC and releasing some embarrassing emails to WikiLeaks. Then they have a field day over the Mike Flynn affair. Meet the Press spent a lotta time yakking about Russians this morning. They were clearly trying to sell the idea that the Russians tipped the election to Trump AND that talking to the Russians before the inauguration is treason.
Does anyone in the real world believe either idea?
Does anyone in the real world believe either idea?
How long do curly bulbs last, really?
The traditional incandescent bulbs claim a 800-1000 hour life. That's the best compromise between light per watt hour and bulb life. They sell long life incandescent bulbs, and they do last longer, but they don't give much light. A 60 watt conventional bulb throws as much light as a 100 watt long life bulb. 800-1000 hours for say a living room lamp that goes on at sundown and burns til bedtime, is 200-300 days, call it a year.
The curly bulbs claim 8000 hour life, ten times the life of an incandescent. That ought to mean ten years service life.
And I suppose some curly bulbs do last that long. A lot of 'em don't. I have had at least four, die in place after only a year or two of service. That's out of a total of 8 curly bulbs in my house. Half the population of curly bulbs dies young. Mostly the dead ones come out of the fixture with a burn mark on the base, suggesting that some electronic part inside the solid state ballast has failed, rather than the glowing curly tube. Let's guess that the marketeers who pushed for the 8000 hour life claim were thinking that the only part that could fail was the curly tube, analogous to the filament in an incandescent bulb. Solid state ballast failures were ignored.
On the other hand, as a homeowner, I don't care why the curly bulb died, I gotta replace it for $5 or live in the dark. But I do think anyone computing lifetime costs of incandescent vs curly bulbs ought to call the curly bulb life as 4000 hours rather than the 8000 hours marked on the package.
The curly bulbs claim 8000 hour life, ten times the life of an incandescent. That ought to mean ten years service life.
And I suppose some curly bulbs do last that long. A lot of 'em don't. I have had at least four, die in place after only a year or two of service. That's out of a total of 8 curly bulbs in my house. Half the population of curly bulbs dies young. Mostly the dead ones come out of the fixture with a burn mark on the base, suggesting that some electronic part inside the solid state ballast has failed, rather than the glowing curly tube. Let's guess that the marketeers who pushed for the 8000 hour life claim were thinking that the only part that could fail was the curly tube, analogous to the filament in an incandescent bulb. Solid state ballast failures were ignored.
On the other hand, as a homeowner, I don't care why the curly bulb died, I gotta replace it for $5 or live in the dark. But I do think anyone computing lifetime costs of incandescent vs curly bulbs ought to call the curly bulb life as 4000 hours rather than the 8000 hours marked on the package.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Clean Energy's Dirty Secret
Cover story of this week's Economist magazine. Comes with a cute graphic cover. The secret? Between heavy subsidies and falling costs, a lot of solar cells and windmills have been installed. Once installed, this equipment runs whenever the sun is up or the wind is blowing. So on a sunny breezy day there is plenty of juice, and cheap juice at that, and the expensive central power plants have to shut down until sundown. The Economist is halfway wised up, they do understand that we need those central power plants to keep the lights on after sundown. The problem as they see it is to find away to pay for the necessary central power plants when they only get to run and make money for half a day. The "alternate energy" is supplying power for the daylight hours.
There are a few unmentionables with the Economist. Not once does the phrase "nuclear power" appear in the multipage article. The Economist is virtuously anti-nuclear. They do briefly mention batteries, suggesting that eventually they will be able to carry the load after dark. Not likely, anytime soon. We have been fiddling around with battery technology for better than 200 years. Best we have now (Lithium Ion) is only maybe twice as good as Alexander Volta's first copper zinc cell of 200 years ago. We need an improvement of ten times to get a battery good enough to carry the electric grid thru the night.
Another unmentionable was "fracking" In North America, the frackers are producing so much cheap natural gas that the electric companies have given up on nuclear and coal because natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal. But the Economist can't breath a word about that because fracking is a dirty word in Europe.
The Economist wants, but doesn't quite say so, is government subsidies for central power plants to keep them on line for backup when the sun is down and the wind stops blowing.
Simpler and cheaper would be to drop subsidies for "alternate energy" and drop "net-metering" which forces power companies to pay "alternate energy" producers for juice they don't need. But the greenies would freak..
There are a few unmentionables with the Economist. Not once does the phrase "nuclear power" appear in the multipage article. The Economist is virtuously anti-nuclear. They do briefly mention batteries, suggesting that eventually they will be able to carry the load after dark. Not likely, anytime soon. We have been fiddling around with battery technology for better than 200 years. Best we have now (Lithium Ion) is only maybe twice as good as Alexander Volta's first copper zinc cell of 200 years ago. We need an improvement of ten times to get a battery good enough to carry the electric grid thru the night.
Another unmentionable was "fracking" In North America, the frackers are producing so much cheap natural gas that the electric companies have given up on nuclear and coal because natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal. But the Economist can't breath a word about that because fracking is a dirty word in Europe.
The Economist wants, but doesn't quite say so, is government subsidies for central power plants to keep them on line for backup when the sun is down and the wind stops blowing.
Simpler and cheaper would be to drop subsidies for "alternate energy" and drop "net-metering" which forces power companies to pay "alternate energy" producers for juice they don't need. But the greenies would freak..
Friday, February 24, 2017
Combat Readiness
No military unit is ever 100% combat ready. Troops will be taking leave, some weapons will be out of commission, there are always some shortages in compliment, authorized slots unfilled, some gear worn or obsolete. So, something less than 100% is as good as you can do.
Back when I was pounding a flight line in USAF, the standard was 71% of squadron aircraft ready to fly every day. We had to report our percent in commission every morning at 4 AM. That gave maintenance most of the night to fix the planes that the pilots had broke flying them the previous day. We had 20 fighters and to make 71% operationally ready, we had to have 15 aircraft in commission, every single morning. We usually had one aircraft in periodic inspection which took days to complete. Or undergoing engine change, which took a day and a half. So we could only afford to have four aircraft down for maintenance after the witching hour of 4 AM.
Aviation Week ran an article this week about readiness rates. Somehow USAF was still making 71%, but just barely. Army, Marines and Navy were only doing 50%. Back in my day, a USAF squadron commander who failed to make 71% got relieved of duty. Dunno how the other services feel about the issue, nowadays.
Distorting the numbers is the huge amount of aircraft out for depot level maintenance (DLM we used to call it). At squadron level we only had to report on squadron aircraft. If we sent an aircraft off for DLM, it no longer counted as assigned to our squadron. About once a year we would send a plane off to depot, and it would take depot a matter of months to get it back to us. So something like 2.5% to 5% of the force was in DLM. That was then
Now, the Marines are reporting 171 F/A18 fighters assigned to squadrons and 109 F/A18 fighters in DLM. That's 38% of the fleet out of commission for DLM. That's bad. Really bad.
Aviation Week (staunch industry supporter that they are) is calling for more funding for aircraft maintenance.
I wonder how you rate the combat readiness of infantry or tank units.
Back when I was pounding a flight line in USAF, the standard was 71% of squadron aircraft ready to fly every day. We had to report our percent in commission every morning at 4 AM. That gave maintenance most of the night to fix the planes that the pilots had broke flying them the previous day. We had 20 fighters and to make 71% operationally ready, we had to have 15 aircraft in commission, every single morning. We usually had one aircraft in periodic inspection which took days to complete. Or undergoing engine change, which took a day and a half. So we could only afford to have four aircraft down for maintenance after the witching hour of 4 AM.
Aviation Week ran an article this week about readiness rates. Somehow USAF was still making 71%, but just barely. Army, Marines and Navy were only doing 50%. Back in my day, a USAF squadron commander who failed to make 71% got relieved of duty. Dunno how the other services feel about the issue, nowadays.
Distorting the numbers is the huge amount of aircraft out for depot level maintenance (DLM we used to call it). At squadron level we only had to report on squadron aircraft. If we sent an aircraft off for DLM, it no longer counted as assigned to our squadron. About once a year we would send a plane off to depot, and it would take depot a matter of months to get it back to us. So something like 2.5% to 5% of the force was in DLM. That was then
Now, the Marines are reporting 171 F/A18 fighters assigned to squadrons and 109 F/A18 fighters in DLM. That's 38% of the fleet out of commission for DLM. That's bad. Really bad.
Aviation Week (staunch industry supporter that they are) is calling for more funding for aircraft maintenance.
I wonder how you rate the combat readiness of infantry or tank units.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)