View 748 Wednesday, October 31, 2012

ALL HALLOWS EVE

I’ve been a bit under the weather the last couple of days. Much of my family is on the east coast, and all came through Sandy unharmed. I have friends in Manhattan who still have no electric power, and I understand that the looting has begun – I saw pictures of people carrying huge flat screen TV monitors down the street, and other such matters. Our best wishes to all.

A long time correspondent sends this:

Screwy Polls

Jerry,

A lot of people seem to be stressing over the difference between the national polls that show a modest Romney lead, and the state-by-state polls that still point toward an Obama win in the Electoral College.

I’ve been following polls closely for months, particularly the electoral-vote map with state-by-state poll averages at RealClearPolitics, and one thing I’ve noticed is that some polling outfits have been playing pro-Dem games with their state polls – in at least one blatantly obvious case, temporarily dropping their ~5 point Dem skew earlier this month, then after a week or so readopting it. (In aid of some sort of "comeback kid" narrative? Because word came down "damn salvaging your credibility"? Who knows.)

It’s gotten bad enough that the people at RealClearPolitics have written a story about it, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/31/whats_behind_the_state-national_poll_divergence_115979.html.

They’re very diplomatic about it; they don’t ever actually state that some of the state polls in their averages are rigged (or to be charitable, merely a mix of incompetence and wishful thinking). But they do calculate that the nationwide average of the state-by-state polls is biased 2 to 2.5 points toward the Dems compared to the national polls. They go on to state that the correct answer is very unlikely to be an average of the two, and leave it at that.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that it’s the national polls that are correct. I’ve come to apply about two points of Kentucky windage to the RCP averages in key swing states (or in some cases I just ignore the more blatant pro-Dem outliers) and the RCP piece reinforces my belief I have it about right.

Nobody should draw too much comfort from this. Even applying RCP’s Kentucky windage to the current swing state poll averages yields only the narrowest of Romney wins – and several key states, notably Ohio, Nevada, and Wisconsin, will be well within the margin of cheating that their regional Dem machines have demonstrated in the past. (Iowa is also razor-close, but less historically prone to ballot-box stuffing.)

My current take: Romney wins if he takes any two out of those four by greater than the margin of cheating. This assumes he also holds onto current narrow leads in Colorado, Virgina, and Florida. And in at least one case it assumes he also knocks off one electoral vote from Maine (as seems likely).

Bottom line: Absent a couple more points Romney pickup nationally (possible but nothing to count on) it’ll be a damned close-run thing.

sign me

Porkypine

Polls are subject to manipulation, and they are also vulnerable to mistaken assumptions. Few people are competent in both the mathematical complexities of statistical inference, and the subtleties of political thinking. In particular, there are powerful social forces at work that make it very difficult to factor in dishonesty in answering pollsters. When I was Managing Director of the Pepperdine research Institute we won contracts to study polling and results from both the FDA and the Department of Justice, and it was very clear that training pollsters is both difficult and expensive, and few polling companies can afford to do it right.

In the present situation we have a President who was elected not only to the Presidency, but to something greater than that. He was the bringer of Hope and Change, The One you’ve been waiting for. Not surprisingly he did not meet all those expectations. Those who believed he would can either denounce him, or retreat into silence, or react in other ways. There are numerous studies of what happens to Believers when their expectations are not met. None of them look to be too useful for pollsters.

My own view, not based on much evidence, is that there are a number of people disappointed in Mr. Obama who do not care to admit that, and that many of them will react to this by abandoning electoral politics – and by not voting. That’s not much more than a guess, but I would not be astonished if a week from today we find that the election wasn’t even close.

The technology march continues, and there’s a lot to write about. We have an embarrassment of riches in cell phones, iPads , Tablets, communications devices other than phones, desktops, laptops, and all of them at consumer prices. I’m trying to keep up with all of it. I note that I am not alone in being not quite overwhelmed with the latest development – not quite overwhelmed, but faced with a very great deal to write about.

But first it’s getting late and it will be dark in an hour or so. It should be a good Halloween. I rather enjoy seeing the spectacle.

Mail 747 Saturday, October 27, 2012

Publuis Speaks

Dr. Pournelle –

27. October 1787: The first of the Federalist Papers are published.

It’s a fascinating time to be studying the Federalist Papers.

However, looking at all that is going on, it would be worthwhile to also study the writings of the anti-federalists as well.

Pieter

The anti-federalists were concerned that the Federal Government would become too powerful and suppress the liberties of the states and of the people…

Patrick Henry was one of their leaders. He would not go to the Convention of 1787 saying he smelt a rat. George Mason was another.

RFID for Public School Students

Dr. Pournelle,

I think we now have conclusive proof that these are the Crazy Years. Students in San Antonio public schools are being tracked by RFID. The administrators are unashamed to say they are trying to raise their take of state money by increasing attendance.

If this goes nationwide I expect more libertarians and conservatives will use private schools and homeschool. This would accentuate a bifurcation of society into Taxpayers and Citizens, to borrow your taxonomy.

http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/26/14705346-texas-schools-begin-tracking-students-with-computer-chips-in-id-cards?lite

and

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2011352/texas-school-uses-rfid-badges-to-track-student-locations.html

Best wishes,

Nathan Raye

Given the uselessness of much of the public school system, and the terrible expense of the official credentials of education, there are few ways out. Go into debt in order to pay the absurd costs of our universities which teach what used to be taught free in high school; keep the debt for life.

The solution to much of the cost of ‘higher education’ is to return to competent high schools. But the teachers unions will insist – probably believing it – that this is impossible even if we once did it. They say they can’t do it now. They’re right of course. They can’t.

What we need is some kind of cheaper way to certify that you are educated.

Jacques Barzun, RIP.

Fitting that he outlasted Hobsbawm, if only by a hairsbreadth:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/arts/jacques-barzun-historian-and-scholar-dies-at-104.html?pagewanted=all>

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9636970/Jacques-Barzun.html>

<http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/49e5e56d9c042fdca988d9c54494d573/cultural-historian-author-jacques-barzun-dies>

Roland Dobbins

Dear Dr. Pournelle:

Lena Dunham put out a Pro-Obama ad saying that "your first time should be with someone who cares".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6G3nwhPuR4

…

If this actually puts him over the top, I won’t move to Australia because I have family obligations here. But I would really, really, really, wish I could.

Of course, it’s also possible that people will be offended by so unserious approach to such a fundamental question. I mean, if you REALLY want to compare voting for a president to a sex act, the comedic potential is unlimited, but I suspect you really don’t want to hear it. Even if my second thought involves the word "prison". My first thought is unprintable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I am never surprised by what political operatives will say.

Like Niven says, Any damn fool can predict the past. Seems like there’s a lot of damn foolery going around on this topic.

Meanwhile, from a G.W. Bush-era former CIA analyst:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-critics-of-obamas-libya-response-profoundly-misunderstand-intelligence/263139/

And, from the archives, a piece on "creeping determinism":

http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2003_03_10_a_dots.html

Key quote from the piece, explaining the phrase:

"None of these postmortems, however, answer the question raised by the Yom Kippur War: Was this pattern obvious *before* the attack? This question–whether we revise our judgment of events after the fact–is something that psychologists have paid a great deal of attention to.

For example, on the eve of Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China, the psychologist Baruch Fischhoff asked a group of people to estimate the probability of a series of possible outcomes of the trip. What were the chances that the trip would lead to permanent diplomatic relations between China and the United States? That Nixon would meet with the leader of China, Mao Tse-tung, at least once? That Nixon would call the trip a success? As it turned out, the trip was a diplomatic triumph, and Fischhoff then went back to the same people and asked them to recall what their estimates of the different outcomes of the visit had been. He found that the subjects now, overwhelmingly, "remembered" being more optimistic than they had actually been. If you originally thought that it was unlikely that Nixon would meet with Mao, afterward, when the press was full of accounts of Nixon’s meeting with Mao, you’d "remember" that you had thought the chances of a meeting were pretty good. Fischhoff calls this phenomenon "creeping determinism"–the sense that grows on us, in retrospect, that what has happened was actually inevitable–and the chief effect of creeping determinism, he points out, is that it turns unexpected events into expected events. As he writes, "The occurrence of an event increases its reconstructed probability and makes it less surprising than it would have been had the original probability been remembered.""

Hoping this finds you well,

– Hal

This is all I know though I have heard part of this from other sources. This is commentary /analysis, so…

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/bill-clinton-told-hillary-to-resign-us-arming-syrian-rebels-with-ties-to-al-queda-muslim-brotherhood/

This is my first look at that web site and I know nothing about it or its staff. Nor do I know much about the relationship of the Clintons in these times.

Five-second Rule

As I recall, the Mythbusters’ examination of the rule found that a handful of seconds didn’t really make any difference. Moist, flat, food picks up bacteria immediately. Food that is dry and doesn’t present a broad contact surface doesn’t really do any worse in 6 seconds than 2. This doesn’t seem surprising to me.

Mike Johns

Ah well.

Synopsis of the Wizard of Oz.

<http://twitpic.com/b7f9za>

Roland Dobbins

: Occasional virus double-checks

While online virus scans are convenient, I think a better choice for an occasional double-check would be a Linux-based Rescue CD. You know how adept today’s rootkits are at hiding themselves from the OS itself. The boot CD completely bypasses those tricks.

Obviously, it’s less convenient. But if you run it overnight then it’s not that big of a deal. Or, you can try to find useful work to do on a nearby machine while it’s running.

Drake Christensen

Agreed, and I actually have done this.

APOD: 2012 October 22 – A Space Shuttle on the Streets of Los Angeles, a video:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap121022.html

I want one of those transporters. Looks perfect for parallel parking.

Ed

It was quite a sight.

Subject: Italian court convicts 7 scientists for failing to predict earthquake

I wonder if it’s too much of a stretch to wonder when they will start convicting scientists for not agreeing with Global Warming alarmism:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/22/italian-court-convicts-7-scientists-for-failing-to-predict-earthquake/?test=latestnews

Tracy

I wondered that too. But we still do not know the entire story about the case in Italy. Just wh said what, and when…

Louisiana Mushroom Cloud – Rods from God?

Hi Jerry;

Really iffy source but you got a call on a conspiracy web site. The speculation is that a recent Louisiana mushroom cloud that the government blames on a ammo bunker explosion is really a test of the Project Thor Rods from God concept you developed in the 1950s at Boeing. They were even delivered from the X37 space plane that was recently relaunched.

http://beforeitsnews.com/earthquakes/2012/10/urgent-warning-the-next-24-hours-project-thor-is-at-hand-2445686.html

Bill Baggott

First I have heard of this. The whole point of Thor is that there wouldn’t be a mushroom cloud…

novels and quality

One of the problems with the “revolution in publishing” we are seeing is the proliferation of really bad books that are available. Finding good books is more difficult than it used to be or maybe I’m just getting old and irascible.

The problem even extends to publications in medicine.

Mark

When I wrote about information utilities and using them for self publication in A Step Farther Out, I did point out that this would make necessary some new ways to sort out the gold from the dross. That seems to be happening.

But one man’s drech is another’s pleasure, and it’s astonishing how many individual authors now have their niche readerships. I expect to see more of that.

Air + Water = Gasoline

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html

–

* * *

"Mad Science" means never asking, "What’s the worst that could happen?"

–Schlock mercenary

I’d have to see a lot more evidence before investing in this…

Sanitary towel firm’s ‘CEO’ sets traumatised man straight (don’t be drinking coffee when you watch the video):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/18/bodyform_video/print.html

Ed

View 747 Wednesday, October 24, 2012

An Anniversary of Note from the 70 years War

Jerry,

This week is the fiftieth anniversary of the Minuteman I being place on strategic alert.

Regards, Charles Adams, Bellevue, NE

<http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2008/november/i_history.pdf>

"…The first operational Minuteman site was Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., where the first 10-missile ‘flight’ was rushed into activation on Oct. 27, 1962, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. U.S. President John F. Kennedy referred to the missiles as his "ace in the hole" during this historic standoff with the Soviet Union…"

I recall those times. I had some involvement in command and control systems of the time (all long obsolete). And I recall the Cuban Missile Crisis: we were in my back yard filling burlap bags with dirt. We then carried them into the basement. Seattle wasn’t a primary target but we were East of a naval target area. East and downwind…

Last night Greta van Sustern of Fox News showed a printed copy of an eMail from the State department delegation in Libya that apparently went to the situation rooms in both the White House and the State Department in Foggy Bottom. It stated quite clearly that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed terrorists with AK-47 rifles and RPG’s. This was about two hours into the attack. There was no mention of any protests against any video.

The existence of the eMail is now confirmed by the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/email-state-department-told-white-house-militants-claimed-responsibility-for-libya-attack/2012/10/24/b4cd09b0-1def-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html. There was no mention of this in today’s Wall Street Journal or the Los Angeles Times although Ms. Van Sustern was displaying the memo at 7PM Pacific Time last night. I saw it.

We do not usually do breaking news here, and we certainly do not have all the data; but it does seem to me that the President certainly knew by Wednesday morning 12 September that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was an organized attack by a terrorist organization – or at least that such an organization was claiming it.

We also have reason to believe that the White House was aware of the attack within two hours of its beginning. The attack continued for some seven hours, and at least two of those killed were killed in the last hours.

The United States maintains forces that could have reached Benghazi by helicopter within two hours from Italy. I do not have a list of other assets in the Mediterranean, but it does appear that we had some resources in the area. They were not sent.

From the first debate:

ROMNEY: And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading, or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could we have not known?

But I find more troubling than this, that on — on the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador, the first time that’s happened since 1979, when — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, other political event.

At that time the official US position was that the attack on our consulate was a demonstration against a U-Tube video defaming the Prophet Mohammed PBUH that got out of hand. That was still the official position of the United States Department of State – and one presumes the White House – as late as Sunday September 16 when the US Ambassador to the UN declared it on several Sunday news shows.

As of now there has been no statement from the White House in explanation.

As to what might have been done: we knew that conditions in Benghazi were deteriorating long before September 11, 2012, and also that 9-11 is a memorable anniversary. Benghazi is a seaport. The United States has ships called helicopter carriers. Helicopters land on them. Helicopters can carry Marines. Marines carry rifles in addition to bayonets and ammunition. Marines have been known to defend US diplomatic institutions against local attack, and their effectiveness is well known.

As to obtaining Libyan permission to allow a US helicopter carrier – say something like the late USS Tripoli – to berth in Benghazi, their refusal would itself be something worth knowing, and they certainly have no capability of preventing such a ship to stand off shore; and surely the Libyan provisional government would not refuse a US request to send in helicopters to rescue American diplomatic personnel. We could negotiate that in advance of 9-11, and doing that would be simple prudence.

It is not as if we have not gone through such things before. The United States has some experience in these matters. And we did have warning in advance.

Despite that warning, an American diplomatic institution was attacked, and four Americans including our Minister Plenipotentiary and Ambassador Extraordinary were killed. Clearly something went very wrong. Such matters should not happen, and if they do, precautions must be taken to see that they do not happen again.

Surely the White House owes us more of an explanation than continued references to a U-Tube movie trailer?

As it happens I have some experience in thinking about incidents of this sort. Back in the 1950’s I partnered with some senior officers of the US Navy to write papers on international security. Our conclusion, based in part on experiences of the British Royal Marines in Africa, was that ships capable of carrying about a battalion of Marines with helicopter transportation and air support would be capable of handling the vast majority of violent incidents taking place within 100 km. of deep water. Those papers are said to have been influential in the design and commissioning of the Iwo Jima class helicopter assault carriers including the USS Tripoli which served as President George H W Bush’s flagship when he visited Somalia. My son Phillip was an ensign on the Tripoli at that time. I don’t claim much credit in ship design, but I did have some small input in development of tactical use; count me as a fan of Iwo Jima class as a means of force projection. Alas, they are pretty well gone, and I am not all that impressed with what replaced them.

I still believe that the Navy needs the modern equivalent of the Iwo Jima class ships: a battalion of marines with transport and fire support. Their purpose is to deal with situation like the Benghazi incident – largely by deterring them. The threat of an avenging company of Marines not an hour away is a very effective deterrent to terrorists planning an armed attack. They can’t stop a suicide bomber, but they can sure stop a group with AK-47’s, RPG’s, LMG’s, and mortars.

Perhaps someone should explain that to the President. We know that he knows that we have ships that airplanes can land on. Given the results in Benghazi it may be that no one explained how the LPH ships worked, and why we need such assets in this dangerous world.

I have an appointment with a podiatrist, and no, there is nothing wrong with my feet; but since I am mildly diabetic Kaiser has decided that I should have a foot inspection and pedicure. That seems like a very good idea, and it happens this afternoon. On our Knights of Lazarus pilgrimage to Israel one of our companions was a podiatrist, and he is, so far as I know, the only one I have ever met, and I know little about the subject. Perhaps I will find out more.

And that went well. Now to work on fiction. And the Pledge Drive continues. If you don’t know what that is, this place operates on the Public Radio model. It’s free, but it will not stay open without new and renewing subscribers. We get plenty of subscribers, but people sometimes need reminding. This is your reminder. If you have not subscribed, this would be a good time to do it. If you have not renewed your subscription in a while, this would be a great time to renew. Thanks to all who have. As usual the pledge drive corresponds with KUSC’s pledge drives. I don’t ask for anything like as much money as they do, but then I don’t  have the expenses they have.

Subscribe now! Renew now!.  There. I’m done shouting at you, and the drive ends at the end of the week.http://www.jerrypournelle.com/paying.html

Regarding the Italian trial of the scientists, I have this from another conference. It sums it up nicely:

According to Nature:

What happened outside the meeting room may haunt the scientists, and perhaps the world of risk assessment, for many years. Two members of the commission, Barberi and De Bernardinis, along with mayor Cialente and an official from Abruzzo’s civil-protection department, held a press conference to discuss the findings of the meeting. In press interviews before and after the meeting that were broadcast on Italian television, immortalized on YouTube and form detailed parts of the prosecution case, De Bernardinis said that the seismic situation in L’Aquila was “certainly normal” and posed “no danger”, adding that “the scientific community continues to assure me that, to the contrary, i’s a favourable situation because of the continuous discharge of energy”. When prompted by a journalist who said, “So we should have a nice glass of wine,” De Bernardinis replied “Absolutely”, and urged locals to have a glass of Montepulciano.

Oops. The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04quake.html?_r=2&> weighed in with an expert:

The statement by the official, who is not a seismologist, violated a cardinal rule of risk communication, which is that those involved should speak only to their expertise, said Dennis Mileti, an emeritus professor of behavioral science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “This person should not have been speaking,” said Dr. Mileti, who has studied risk communication.

Yes, we often find officials keeping silent on important matters of the day. Anyway, the earthquake came and killed and after the funerals people remembered the wine quip. Fingers were pointed, collars were fingered, a trial was ordered. Guilty! The judge gave the six scientists who had the conclave with De Bernardinis six whopping years in prison.

But the trial was not, contrary to many discussions, because the scientists failed to predict the quake. The prosecutor, one Picuti, said (in Nature), “The basis of the charges is not that they didn’t predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L’Aquila…They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors and they did not.”

“This isn’t a trial against science,” insists [surgeon and local resident] Vittorini, who is a civil party to the suit. But he says that a persistent message from authorities of “Be calm, don’t worry”, and a lack of specific advice, deprived him and others of an opportunity to make an informed decision about what to do on the night of the earthquake. “That’s why I feel betrayed by science,” he says. “Either they didn’t know certain things, which is a problem, or they didn’t know how to communicate what they did know, which is also a problem.”

The busted Italian forecast was of the Bobby “Don’t Worry Be Happy” McFerrin, there-is-no-reason-for-concern kind. And those fellows paid the price. But what of the opposite: endless end-of-the-world predictions.

The problem with coppering your risks against Type I Errors is the commission of more Type II Errors. That is, if RUN FOR THE HILLS! causes panic when no earthquake eventuates, DON’T WORRY BE HAPPY causes worse problems when an earthquake does happen. Apparently "We don’t know for sure and we need to study this for many more years" is not an acceptable public announcement. Run or stay put? Which? In law there is no space for random error. The product always has a "design flaw," the injustice is always intentional. But no matter how fine the decision rules are, there will always be an alpha-risk of running when nothing happens and a beta-risk of staying put when something does.

The only thing the scientists can say is that "In the past whenever we have seen tremors like this, there has been a major earthquake p% of the time." If p is small, folks relax and don’t worry. But there is a first time for everything, especially when there is no causal link between the prior condition and the event of interest. It’s like learning that no incumbent senator has ever won a presidential election… until one did (Harding). Correlation is not causation. Really.

I don’t know Italian law. I am glad I didn’t have to give a statement about how much to worry about an earthquake. I do recall people asking me about the danger of nuclear war, and how much they ought to spend on survival measures. But that was a long time ago. And all the nuclear survival preparations I wrote about when I was doing Survive columns did not turn out to be needed…

View 747 Tuesday, October 23, 2012

I was on  TWIT this week. See http://twit.tv/show/this-week-in-tech/376

Here is a more complete account of the earthquake prediction story:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22412-seismologists-found-guilty-of-manslaughter.html

From a colleague in another conference:

From what I have seen so far, the actual case seems to be about scientific over-reach. The scientists were convicted not of failing to predict an earthquake, but of declaring that an earthquake was "very unlikely." If, as reported, the scientists correctly stated that it was impossible to predict an earthquake, why did they then qualify it with a statement that one was very unlikely? By implication, the statement predicted an earthquake was "very unlikely" to occur, and if we can’t predict earthquakes will happen, how can we predict one won’t happen? While there is a definite anti-science trend in some quarters, I think it is not entirely fed by ignorance. Instead, scientific over-reaching, pretending to knowledge we do not in fact have, has led to too many cases of "nothing can go wrong," "there’s nothing to worry about," "we understand all of the risks," and so on. I think that is what led to the convictions in Italy.

Given the state of earthquake prediction science – there isn’t any, and no one can reliably do it – it’s hard to understand how one might be convicted of manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake. Surely there is more to the story, and so far we have not seen trial transcripts. From the New Scientist article:

So what did the six seismologists that have been charged do?
They spoke at a meeting on 31 March 2009 – a week before the quake – organised by Italy’s Civil Protection Department. At the meeting, they said that while they could not rule out a major quake, and it was best to be prepared, there was no particularly good reason to think that one was coming.

Afterwards, the department’s deputy head Bernardo De Bernardinis told the media that the small shocks were reducing the seismic stresses, lowering the chances of a major quake. "That’s completely wrong," Musson says.

This statement, according to the prosecution, gave false confidence to the inhabitants of L’Aquila. This may be true. However, Musson says, "I haven’t been able to work out why the other six are being held responsible".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22412-seismologists-found-guilty-of-manslaughter.html

One thing we can expect from this is a great deal more care given to statements about upcoming disasters.

Now imagine what would happen if, instead of global warming, we get big glaciers? Or perhaps sociologists can be charged with crimes for spending money on various crime reduction schemes if they don’t work? Or perhaps the soothsayers can be changed with not giving true sooth. There is still much to learn from this.

The debate went about as I expected. Mr. Obama believes our Libya policy has been a success, and Mr. Romney was smart enough to let that stand without challenge. Given Mr. Obama’s reaction to comments on Benghazi in the debate before this one, that seems an intelligent thing to do: there is little Mr. Romney could tell the debate audience that it does not already know about the success or lack thereof of our Libya policy.

Mr. Romney’s best line: “Attacking me is not a foreign policy.” Mr. Obama’s: On being told that we have many fewer ships than we had in past times, “We also have fewer horses and bayonets.” He then added that we now have ships called aircraft carriers. Airplanes land on them.

The pledge drive continues. This place operates on the public radio model. It is free, but it will not continue unless people subscribe to it. My thanks to all those who have subscribed or renewed their subscriptions. Enough have come in that it is taking me a while to record them all. That’s a Good Thing. And thanks to all.

If you haven’t subscribed this would be a good time to do it. And if you can’t remember when you last subscribed, this would be a good time to renew your subscription. Thanks.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/paying.html

Mail is accumulating. I’ll get to a batch tonight, And I’m working on reviews.

View 746 Saturday, October 20, 2012

I’ve been recovering from stuff including having my nose chopped on. The good news is that the cancer on the tip of my nose wasn’t the kind that metastasizes, and after two MOHS job operations they have apparently got it all. They also got all the other little stuff, so once again I am cancer free.

This leaves me free to start Chaos Manor Reviews up again. There’s a lot going on in the high tech world – Newsweek folds, Apple iPhone 5 and a new iPad, Windows 8, silicon drives that you can afford as your boot drive making new systems screaming fast, Sprint is being bought by Japanese capital that looks to me as if it’s a capital export from Japan to the US, which is an interesting prediction about the relative economies (and possibly of the election). And more.

The bad news, such as it is, is that this is the week of the KUSC pledge drive, which means that it’s pledge drive week here at Chaos Manor. I confess that I ignored the Spring pledge drive because I wasn’t too sure just how much work I’d be able to do, but we’re back.

For those who don’t know, this place and Chaos Manor Reviews operate together on the ‘public radio’ model, which is to say they are broadcast free, but I won’t keep them up unless I get enough subscriptions to make it worth while. As I get older what I consider ‘enough’ changes a bit as does how much I am able to do, but I am the first to say I haven’t done as much in the past few months as I think I should do. That changes now. I’m catching up on fiction – I’ve done a few hundred words a day for the past week – and that takes time, but I also have more energy. It’s the energy factor that’s the true limiter (although I will say that I have not been enjoying the election; but then I never wanted this place to be a political commentary site to begin with. Yes, the election is important, particularly to the future of high tech, and yes I’m supposed to know something about politics having managed several winning campaigns and having been science/tech advisor to a number of officials including a Speaker of the House; but I find the interaction of high tech and politics more interesting than politics itself.

All of which brings us to pledge week, and Paying for This Place. I don’t bug you about that very often, but I will during pledge week. I time my pledge drives to correspond with KUSC’s since I got the idea of running this like public radio from listening to them. So there you have it. And my hearty thanks to all those who continued to subscribe and to renew their subscriptions – we have a pretty high renewal rate – even through this year when there has been no pledge drive.

We have a new and very fast Windows 8 machine here, and I’ll have a preliminary review presently in Chaos Manor Reviews. I have some complaints, but they may be due to my ignorance: as usual the Microsoft HELP system is ghastly and unhelpful, and since Windows 8 does things much differently from Windows 7 (which works very well but very differently) knowing Windows 7 won’t help you with 8.

Windows 8 has drivers for a lot of stuff, and for the most part they work: but when it comes time to disconnect something, like an external USB drive, when you go to the “Safely remove hardware” icon (which still hides in the hidden icons thingy at the lower right of what used to be the task bar) and click on that, often as not it will tell you that the device is in use, and you have to close the app that’s using it before you can remove it. The problem is that there is no way I know of to get a list of running applications. Task Manager doesn’t work the way it used to, and there’s really no way to know what is and isn’t running. I think I have closed down ALL applications, but I still get the same error message when trying to remove an external drive. Removing it anyway can cause Windows 8 to go into what amounts to paralysis, requiring a hardware reset to recover from it.

As I have said, there are a lot of things to like about Windows 8, but that isn’t one of them, and so far I have no source of information on what to do about it. Perhaps one of you knows? Otherwise I’ll keep looking. And yes, I have a bunch of top flight advisors who usually know this sort of stuff, but none of us are experts on Windows 8, and I’m putting it to them at the same time I’m asking you…)

I understand that the UN wants to monitor the US elections to be sure they are fair. This should be interesting.

The debates worked as planned. The Republican strategy is to make the Democrats run on their record. “You know what President Obama will do for the next four years because you see what he has done in the last four.”

The Democratic strategy is to change the subject and show that Romney is unfit to be President. “He doesn’t have a five point plan, he has a one point plan” to tax the middle class and let the rich get richer. And the ads show grandma going over a cliff in her wheelchair, and feature the man whose wife died of cancer because her health care benefits weren’t good enough, and so forth. Romney, they say, doesn’t care about you, and in fact he’s a bit of a monster.

The Republican counter to that is to show Romney as Presidential with plenty of dignitas and gravitas.

The debates are of course the epitome of those strategies, and they have worked that way. And absent videos of Romney pulling the wings off flies or torturing puppies, we’ll hear complaints about putting women in binders – whatever that means, sound like something from a John Norman novel – and other stories about Romney’s evil intentions, countered by Romney keeping his temper and looking Presidential as he chides – gently – the President of the United States. A tough job, of course. So far Romney has done it well.

That may change with the foreign policy debate, since it is now clear that the CIA station chief reported that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was not a demonstration but a planned attack, and did so well before the US ambassador to the UN told everyone that it was something else. Why did the President not know this? But I do not think Mr. Romney will press this hard, nor should he. He is the President of the United States, and as Mr. Clinton reminded us, he’s the only president we’ve got. And debating foreign policy is a tricky matter. I would guess that Romney will come out of this debate unharmed and possibly a little ahead. The President will try to make any criticism of his policies a criticism of the United States; Romney must be careful about all that.

It promises to be an interesting evening. And we are closer and closer to the election.

This would be a good time to renew your subscription!