Chaos Manor Home Page> Mail Home Page > View Home Page > Current View > Chaos Manor Reviews Home Page
CHAOS MANOR MAIL
Mail 473 July 2 - 8, 2007
FOR THE CURRENT VIEW PAGE CLICK HERE
July 2, 2007
Welshmen will no yield. You may also enjoy reading
I suppose the silly season is upon us. The Roswell story just will not die. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21994224-2,00.html
Art Bell is now utterly convinced that every word is true. Of course I have just heard him say he understands the Chinese economy and the changes in China.
For lengthier reply SEE BELOW
As seen in this news report
There's a new version of the Storm Trojan on the loose, disguised as an e-postcard but actually recruiting zombies for a botnet, according to the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Centre.
The attack arrives as a spam with the subject line "You've received a postcard from a family member!" and contains links to one of several malware hosting sites, said SANS researcher Lorna Hutcheson in a SAN ISC security alert <http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=3063>. The interesting part is just how multi-layered the attack is - it uses several different exploits, both technical and social.
The aim is to get the user to download a Trojan. If executed, this calls home to a malware hosting server which SANS says has been active since December 2006, and attempts to install zombie software. That then ties the PC into a spam botnet.
Perhaps the most dangerous part is that, when SANS ran it through 30 different anti-virus programs, only a quarter of them picked up ecard.exe as a suspect download.®
Of course, this doesn't matter as much if you are using a Mac or Linux
Mike 'Z' Zawistowski
The Reality Behind the World's Workshop - the flaws in the Chinese economic miracle.
-- Roland Dobbins
Derb on Stephenson's Baroque Cycle.
-- Roland Dobbins
The headline says it all:
Spacesuit entrepreneurs plan parachute jumps from orbit -
Subject: Rocket Man
I'm almost finished reading "Rocket Man", about Pete Conrad. I can see why you liked him. I would have liked him as well. An engineer and astronaut who liked to hang out with the guys in the back rooms building the hardware. And he developed Skylab.
When the decision was made to toss Apollo/Saturn and build shuttle, instead of evolving forward with what existed, that was the first really clear sign that the adults were no longer in charge at NASA.
Pete Conrad was one of my heroes. I admit to being thrilled that he came to the Council meetings I chaired. We lost a giant when he died.
What do you think?
Now that I have read the lieutenant's deathbed
story, I have two major points. First, I think his first five or six points
are real up through sitting in a conference room looking at the debris, and
then he went off on a flight of fancy with the story of the bodies. Perhaps
not: it is conceivable that his superiors wanted him to believe in a false
story. The UFO story might have been a cover up for what really happened. I
am not sure I believe that, but it's possible. I do believe his story of the
conference where they examined some of the debris.
Incidentally the "disappearing nurse" was found by Karl Pflock. So were the "alien hieroglyphics". It broke Karl's heart to have to write his book showing the real truth about Roswell. I knew Karl well, and he was a True Believer in Flying Saucers and UFO's. He set off to write the story of what really happened, fully expecting to find wreckage and bodies.
Second: The notion that a local undertaker would be let in on something so secret that farmers were supposedly threatened with death if they talked to reporters is more than bizarre. And so forth.
But most importantly I think that if the US had any hidden technology in 1964 I would have known about it. Why would they hide it from Systems Command? We were structuring the 1975 force. What would anyone in government hide it for? We were scared stiff of the USSR missile threat, hard pressed to find any war fighting strategy that made sense and would allow for the survival of the American people; we needed everything we had. We had the highest clearances because we were doing a survey of ALL RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES so that we could evaluate force structure designs. We had an absolute need to know, and a directive to all parts of USAF to cooperate. Ye gods, why would the government hide alien technology from us? Where are these secret materials NOW?
What you say makes sense. I grew up outside Carswell AFB. The seriousness of the Cold War was impressed on me at an early age. Everyone's dad ether worked for Sac or Convair/General Dynamics.
Precisely. Project 75 (done at Aerospace Corporation San Bernardino, 1964, Jerry Pournelle editor, Bill Dorrance Director; Aerospace San Bernardino supported Ballistic Systems Division which was headquartered at Norton) was General Schriever's pet, the technology survey that would be used to design and structure the 1975 USAF missile forces. We took that very seriously. I cannot imagine that Wright Pat would keep anything hidden from us that could have any effect on missile technology. The companion study, Project FORECAST, was Air Systems Division's counterpart and directed by Colonel Francis X. Hale, coauthor with me and Possony of The Strategy of Technology.
The United States Air Force took its mission of winning World War III quite seriously. We worked on nuclear exchange war plans. We worked on targeting for winning the war, not merely avenging our dead. We understood that MAD was the national strategy chosen by the civilian heads of government, and we certainly worked to implement a second strike retaliation capability; but our hearts were in winning the damn war, not just killing a lot of Russians.
I cannot imagine that any SAC officers or former SAC officers knew of technologies hidden away at Wright Patterson AFB and did not betray one hint to their brother SAC officers who were intimately involved in Project 75. One of our officers, Colonel Hale (who later went to Vandenberg to direct Blue Scout) was a SAC navigator. He had served his tour on the KC=135 group that operated at our furthest northern bases; if the balloon went up it would have been his mission to rendezvous with the B-52's coming north, refill their tanks over the Pole, and pump his own airplane dry. The KC's would have 2 minutes fuel to break away clean from the 52's, after which they were dead stick over the Arctic. That was part of the price to be paid for war.
In the name of heaven, why would any USAF officer, SAC or Systems Command or Intelligence hide significant technology from the SAC officers involved in designing and structuring the force? Why would some SAC troop from Roswell have hidden technology information from his brother officers who were willing to fly the refueling mission (and from those willing to fly the B-52's on their death run into the USSR)?
No one has ever answered that question. It's just so much more fun to believe in UFO's and government conspiracies and little alien bodies in children's coffins. And God knows it's more lucrative for the radio show hosts to believe in all this than to admit that what happened at Roswell was the crash of a secret experimental balloon (not a damned weather balloon for God's sake; Mogul was HUGE).
When I first heard of Roswell I thought they had laid an egg: that is, that a nuke had fallen out of one of the aircraft (but did not explode; it has happened more than once). At that time we didn't have many nukes, and we kept them and the airplanes moving around so they couldn't be wiped out in one strike. Roswell certainly had the nuclear strike force based there at one time, and probably at the time of the incident. Some of the ham-handed tactics of the security forces make me believe that they thought we'd dropped an egg and it was now important to recover the fissionables and cover up the incident. Until Karl Pflock wrote his book that was what I believed had happened at Roswell. It's now pretty clear: Pflock went through every Roswell "story". I note that the True Believers seldom mention Pflock's book, and none do so dispassionately. Pflock became a traitor to the cause when he wrote what he believed; worse, he wrote the book using UFO True Believer grant money, given to him because it was assumed he'd find out the real story!
So we will once more go through a cycle of Roswell
stories because a Lieutenant speaks from the grave. But I do not think we
will find any actual wreckage and bodies, and I do not think we will find
that the US Air Force has been hiding technology relevant to rockets and
space and flying craft for sixty years.
I’m the guy who wrote the National Review cover story on global warming. I’m not the Jim Manzi who used to run Lotus, as is obvious from my bio on the National Review website.
You apparently think that I have violated some conservative principles, and say that: “We can in fact make a pretty big difference in CO2 levels. It won't be by reducing carbon emissions. If we need to get rid of some CO2, there are some very large scale methods of doing it. The costs are trivial compared to Kyoto -- but if we do the Kyoto nonsense or some variant that the bureaucrats will come up with, we may not be able to afford any large scale methods. And in fact we don't know if we need to get rid of the CO2 in the first place.”
In fact, in my article I say that (1) the impacts of global warming could plausibly range from negligible to severe, (2) a program of emissions reductions should be resisted at all costs as way too expensive, and (3) we should focus on developing economical technical hedges, including technologies for removing carbon from the atmosphere at scale, without disrupting the economy.
You correctly state that “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is a proper conservative principle. So is prudence.
Apologies: I did not know who you were, so I did a Google on your name since I couldn't find anything on the NR site other than the blurb at the bottom of the article
I knew the founders of Lotus and didn't remember you, so I suppose I should have looked closer, but this didn't seem inconsistent with founding Lotus. What I was looking for was why you were chosen to write a definitive article on the "conservative position" on a topic of the importance of Global Warming and a strategy for dealing with it.
I could have written the concluding paragraph
myself, and in fact what I have advocated for years is more money for better science: find out what is going on, before we DO SOMETHING. The Earth appears to be warming; but it has been warming since George Washington dodged ice floes in the Delaware River in December 1776, and much of the warming took place before Arrhenius did his back of the envelope calculations about CO2, industry, and warming in 1895. Just how much warming there has been in the past fifty years is not as settled as you seem to believe, due to the difficulty of coming to any agreement as to what combination of measurements is to be used as "the temperature of the Earth." Clearly most of the surface of the Earth is covered by the seas. What is the "temperature of the sea"? Until we have some basic agreements on the operations to be used to generate that number, it is pretty hard to speak meaningfully of warming or cooling of the seas.
If your "game plan" for Conservatives had been to press hard for better observations and better models, I would have been first to cheer. That does not seem to be what your game plan is.
Alas, I have thrown away the original of the cover story, and I declined to pay $15 to get another; but my recollection of your cover story of a conservative strategy was nothing like the reasoned article I find under your name in National Review On Line. I decided to go looking.
It took me a while to find it, but I did:
And perhaps I misread your "game plan"; but it appears to me that it says we ought to abandon scientific truth and principles and concede the debate over climate changes and causes to the liberal "consensus". This may be good electoral politics. It is terrible science, and in my judgment terrible conservatism. And as an old party manager, I think it's terrible politics as well.
Conceding that man-made global warming is significant is giving the opposition a tremendously powerful weapon! And then trying to play local politics with "do you want to give up your job for someone in the Sahara 100 years from now" in the face of having admitted that we're going to boil the Polar Bears is, well, it would seem to me ill advised.
I have often advocated more prizes. I have no quarrel with many of the substantive parts of your article. But your strategy of conceding the science to the liberals -- who look to be enemies of science and rational thought to me -- in order that we can get on with politics and managing the global warming crisis looks suicidal.
You want to minimize what you have conceded: but in fact the opposition will not let you do that. And once you have conceded the science -- once you say that there is a problem that needs managing -- I think all your further appeals to local job interests will be lost in the sound of boiling Polar Bears.
My strategy remains what it is: offer prizes for technologies for reducing CO2 because, as I said about 30 years ago now, we probably don't want to be running an open-ended experiment on loading the atmosphere with CO2. There may be benefits to lots of CO2 but lets stop at some reasonable elevation and see just what the effects are.
Invest a lot more in sensors and refining measurements and getting some agreed on procedure for establishing temperatures of the atmosphere, seas, and ground (that latter being hard to do because people keep building things around the thermometers).
Invest in better models, but don't simply hand the money to the current modelers. Sure, give them grants, but give some grants to others. Don't build a blooming consensus and use peer review to make sure no one who doesn't share the consensus can be funded!
Experiment with ways to reduce CO2, by such means as seeding ocean deserts with nutrients to see if we can induce plankton blooms. Be sure that any such experiment can be terminated by simply no longer providing the nutrients. Etc.
Look deeper into el Nino and predicting when it will form. That has more effect on North American climate than anything else.
And, for conservatives, be conservative: point out that the Scientific Method is NOT a consensus forming T-group, and good scientific strategy always mostly funds the consensus but reserves funds for those who don't agree. In particular, pay attention to the warming trend data not only on Earth but in the Solar System as well. If the Sun is a variable star -- and there is some evidence that during one of the Warm Periods of the past the Sun was 5% larger than it is now (an account of an annular eclipse perfectly described only for that time and place the eclipse should have been total; to be annular requires that the Sun be 5% larger; perhaps the observer was off his head, but who told him what an annular eclipse looked like?)-- if the Sun is a variable star we probably ought to know that. It might be important.
In other words, our game plan ought not to be to abandon those who have fought the battle for rational discussion of all this, throw them to the wolves, and get on with political management. If that is not what your article advocates, I misread it; but I don't think I did. But then I don't have contempt for Fred Singer and Sallie Baliunas and the others who have tried to show that we don't understand climatology very well, and the case for significant man-made global warming has yet to be proven.
Incidentally, I did not address my remarks about your article to National Review because I have never had a reply or acknowledgement of anything I have sent to National Review since the egregious Frum read me and my friends out of the Conservative Movement. Composing letters to be sent to National Review has been for me a colossal waste of time.
Again I apologize for getting your resume wrong; but I don't I was insulting you. The founders of Lotus included the then Editor in Chief of Byte...
|This week:||Tuesday, July
Thanks for your reply; I've just read the post on your blog.
It seems to me that we agree on a lot: radiative transfer is real; we lack the modeling capability to even measure its net effect to date, never mind project the impact of future emissions scenarios accurately; we should invest more (and more intelligently) in better prediction tools; significant emissions reductions programs are insane, and should be resisted at all costs; using prizes to stimulate development of technologies that could enable us to engineer our way around a problem when and if it develops is smart; and so on.
It seems to me that the primary area of disagreement is how to present the case. I think it makes sense to concede that global warming is a real risk (not certainty) and move on the question of what to do about it. I think this concession is not a "noble lie", as per my article and the prior paragraph - by any way I know to use the English language, it is a correct statement. I have what I think are good reasons for advocating this political position (I think it's the truth; I think that "global warming is real" is about a 75% position among the electorate; most importantly, I think that voters are pretty good at pursuing their own interests and the cost / benefit of a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or similar measure is terrible), but I certainly think smart people of good will can disagree about this political strategy. I don't find them to therefore be "not conservative" or anything else.
Thanks again for your very thoughtful reply.
I suppose our primary disagreement is that I do not concede that there has been any great contribution to climate change by human activity: by great I mean large in comparison to natural events over which we have no control. Secondly, while it is obvious that the Earth has warmed considerably since the Medieval Warm, it is not obvious that the warming is continuing at present, and it is certainly clear that the rate of warming has slowed.
The Earth has been warmer and colder than it is at present, and this in historical times. That, I think, needs a lot more emphasis than it is getting.
Back in the days when I was a space advocate, I was asked my strategy. I generally replied, "Tell the truth and shame the devil." That hasn't always worked, but I still find it the right political strategy and tactics.
Two comments on the commutation
I disagree with your analysis for one very important reason: we need someone like Libby to take his appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And that is what I believe Bush wants to have happen also. The only reason Bush even commuted the sentence was because the judge was being unreasonable about bail during the appeals process. Otherwise, Bush would have let the sentence stand until all appeals had been exhausted. In fact, he can still pardon Libby should the Supreme Court not take the case or rule against Libby.
I don't take the penalty to Libby lightly either. Until his conviction is overturned or pardon, Libby is a convicted felon with all the penalties that entails (i.e. loss of voting rights, not allowed to own a gun, etc.) It will also be a very expensive process without any hope of compensation. It is unfortunate for Libby that he has to fight this, but that is the way our judicial system works. There has to be a defendant like Libby, Roe, or Miranda (to name few famous ones). The Supreme Court nor any of the circuit courts can consider a hypothetical case to establish precedent and settle matters of law. Libby will be doing us a service by fighting this wrongheaded prosecution and (hopefully) winning.
You may be correct, but I have seen no signs of that kind of thinking in the current administration.
Whoever advised Bush to commute Libby's sentence rather than pardon him should not be put in a position to threaten the public health. This person is obviously not competent to be either a dishwasher of McDonald's Manager. It is doubtful that this person can use toilet facilities without seriously soiling himself!
Of course you're right.
Richard Cohen is not exactly a conservative columnist, but I believe he is in substantial agreement with you that money is not the answer to the ills of public education.
So, the point is obvious to everyone, what to do about it? Some years ago there as an excellent WSJ article on the DOD schools on military bases. A key element was that the base commander had the authority to hold the PARENTS to account for their children and it seems to me that something along those lines is needed across the board.
A good friend, who was once on the school board (and the only totally sane SB person I've ever known) told me that "We can't, in six hours a day, make up for what happens with the kids during the other 18 hours." And yet, NCLB and the state level testing require them to do so, or pretend to do so, so what we get is a system that is rigged to show the "results" mandated by these bad laws.
Until we get parents---all parents---involved in public education, no amount of money and no amount of "testing" is going to fix the root problems. What we get instead is political pandering and slogans, but no results.
Perhaps; but so long as we insist on "equality" and that no child be left behind, the schools are the problem: the more money they get the more they come down hard on the smart kids, and even the average kids, in favor of the hopeless kids.
Give the money to the parents as vouchers. But mostly abolish the entir federal education structure. Leave it to the states, and work on the states to devolve control to counties, and on counties to devolve it to local boards. Of course we won't do that.
July 4, 2007
The Declaration, followed by Mencken's interpretation.
The Declaration of Independence
Subject: The Declaration of Independence
Worth reading, though it is 231 years old today:
Two things struck me as I re-read this tract:
1 . If the ACLU and their cronies have their way, it will be stricken from our history because it depend on God as the source of our inalienable rights (since I'm not Jefferson, I can't really call them "unalienable").
2. This: "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
That's about where we are with our current government. I know that already, the "long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" has already brought various Ruby Ridge style groups to the conclusion that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
But for the rest of us? Wouldn't it be nice if by using our political processes we were able to roll back the casual despotism that oppresses us in our daily lives? Heh.
Happy Independence Day.
July 5, 2007
"If we had a 2 million-man army, we wouldn't be having..."
The number of things we wouldn't be having if we had a 2 million man army on active duty are too many to list in the available space. But leading the list of things we wouldn't have are:
1. The current elite composition of both major parties. Neither group is competent, either alone or jointly, to raise, supply and command a 2 million man army in war time. And I believe they are acutely aware of this, which is a main reason we're fighting a splendid little imperial war rather than republican style total warre.
2. An open borders immigration policy designed to facilitate alien invaders in stealing future veterans' post war employment.
3. The level of war profiteering - and worse, incompetent war profiteering - that we've witnessed in the last five years.
4. The current de-industrialization trade policies.
5. The current fuel and energy policies. The 2 million man army and interested relatives would be scouting all possible domestic alternatives to overseas employment of the army to secure foreign energy sources.
I can't claim to have followed the tech argument all the way, but it sounds bad.
In the past, you have followed several pieces of excellent advice with the phrase "What I tell you three times is true." You may already have done this with the advice, "never buy the first version of any new technology or OS." If not, you probably should. It's been a rule of mine for many years.
Of course, there would be an exception for those who make a living "doing things so others don't have to."
Well, Apple has a better reputation in these matters, but apparently they rushed this one out. Or something. I am still gathering data.
A link and cut and paste for your convenience.
Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer Discussion at PhysOrgForum <http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=16089>
It's a fascinating article, and well worth reading the whole thing.=========
Greenland's Warm Past
My question is, of course, are we responsible for this warming period as well?
But of course... After all, didn't the Viking farms on Greenland use up all the warm and bring the cold?
The New York Times finally documents the Official U.S. Department of Education policy to Let No Child Get Ahead. Under current Dept of Ed policies, states may not use "growth models" to actually track the progress of individual students. Instead, states are required to compare this year's 4th grade students to last year's 4th grade students despite any changes in class make-up or size.
Only an educrat would think this preferable to tracking actual individual student progress, although a teachers' union president said the growth model is "voodoo math" because "you have to be a Ph.D. in statistics to even comprehend it."
NCLB, equality and IQ
I think we can all agree that the goals of our public education is equal opportunity for all. The problem seems to be defining and measuring how equal everyone's opportunities are.
The current system, No Child Left Behind, defines a standardized test and sets a bar and says everyone must at least meet this bar. The result: gifted children get neglected because they hurdle the bar with no problem so they don't need any more attention and below average students are pressured to drop out or their results are fudged.
Here's my idea: give all the students an IQ test and then set their desired score on the NCLB tests according to their IQ. In theory, IQ is not teachable but should give an indicator of how much someone can learn so this should allow below average intelligence students to learn to their full potential without dragging down the school's standing and force the schools to challenge above average intelligence students so that they can meet their higher expectations.
Of course the devil is in the details and IQ tests are so politicized at this point that it would be a difficult sell but I think the basic idea has merit.
Regards, Dave Smith Tokyo
Jensen's original studies were intended to identify children who needed "training" as opposed to "education". He did not start off trying to identify racial IQ characteristics. The problem is that if you use IQ tests, you WILL have more blacks in the "train rather than educate" track, and since this is unacceptable, the alternative is to attempt to educate everyone. As Frederick the Great observed, he who defends everything defends nothing. We may also observe that those who try to educate everyone generally educate no one.
Tracking and IQ have been outlawed in these United States. The result is that no child can get ahead; and of course that is the real meaning of No Child Left Behind.
The first move we must make is to abolish the Department of Education, root and branch; fire them all and close down their programs. The few laws that make sense, like extra funding for "impacted" areas where local schools are responsible for educating federal employees and military dependents, can be taken over by General Services.
We should then work to abolish the Supreme Court's legislation -- it was not a judicial decision -- removing local taxation as the main means of funding schools. That usurpation -- there is no other word -- by the Court, imposing a requirement on the states and not even Congress could have imposed -- delivered control of the schools to bureaucrats far away, and turned most of the schools into prisons more concerned with maintaining attendance than doing their jobs. I know there are still some good schools. There are fewer all the time.
This is far more important than the war in Iraq. The United States is losing in this educational war.
Reinventing the Roman legions,
Reinventing the Roman legions with "a dual system combining large "static" local police forces and a small, highly mobile national army" for Iraq:
Mainstreaming and thoughts of Madison
The more I read about the incremental creeping of the US government towards socialism, the more I think about James Madison. The article entitled "Mainstreaming" provoked yet again a few of Madison's quotes in my mind.
Our Biotech Future
By Freeman Dyson
Two facts about the coming century are agreed on by almost everyone. Biology is now bigger than physics, as measured by the size of budgets, by the size of the workforce, or by the output of major discoveries; and biology is likely to remain the biggest part of science through the twenty-first century. Biology is also more important than physics, as measured by its economic consequences, by its ethical implications, or by its effects on human welfare.
I found this comment ironic...
"'It must be obvious that more than one section of the original is now quite unintelligible to the average American of the sort using the Common Speech."
If one goes by actions rather than rhetoric, apparently most if not all of these documents have become unintelligible to all employees of the federal government. The Constitution in particular is honored far more in its breech than in its observance.
Subject: Mencken's declaration
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
Many thanks for Mencken's version of the Declaration of Independence. He sought to mock speech patterns, but when he set aside irony he achieved a kind of demotic poetry. "But when things get so bad that a man ain't hardly got no rights at all no more, but you might almost call him a slave, then everybody ought to get together and throw the grafters out, and put in new ones who won't carry on so high and steal so much, and then watch them." Hip-hip-hooray! Message received and understood!
(Even his sarcasm folds in gently. Put in _new_ grafters, and then watch them!)
The effect, to my ears, sounds more Southern Black, with a hint of backwoods, than mainstream American. Perhaps it is time for another update.
From another conference:
About the Navy: First, the Navy has a very rigorous preventive maintenance program on subs. Every part is numbered, and certain parts are examined and/or replaced on a detailed schedule. Thus, there are a number of different light bulbs on a sub, with a schedule for each light. Records are kept for each inspection and/or replacement, showing when, what the serial number, model number, manufacturer, what the batch number was, the date, and the name and signature of the seaman who did the inspection and or replacement, and the seaman who checked the inspection and or replacement. Secondly, there are detailed plans and blue prints of the subs and all of its systems. Third, there is an extensive onboard machine shop, maintenance facility, with a full range of tools which make it possible to deal with most mechanical problems without surfacing, etc. Finally, if there is a problem which can not be rectified with any of the above, there are maintenance ships which can be sent out to the sub to make major repairs. If that does not work, you get the sub back home one way or another.
There is a true story which tells it all: A sub began to have washers fail. Many of them. But washers never fail -- so this was a puzzle. The Navy went into its tracking records and found out all of the failed washers came from the same source -- same manufacturer, place, same worker. The Navy went out and interviewed the worker and found his wife had died and he was not focused on his work. They sent the man to recover and replaced him with another worker. They went in and replaced EVERY washer that man made within the entire fleet and got rid of all the rest of the washers in storage this man made -- and continued on. They had that kind of information for every part on the ship.
The Soviets did a lot of major innovations on orbit with specially developed tools and procedures never tried before in order to deal with repairs never anticipated or planned. These were done with parts and procedures which the crew or the ground and the crew together invented and built. Models were often designed by the ground team, were built on the ground and then sent up on the re-supply ship. The ground and flight crews tested the repair with models and two way communications, tv, etc. The space repairs were very complex.
humans seem to pose problems, even after engineering marvels are commissioned ! ...and the examples are well known in aeronautics and space industry as well.
Now, I hope those roboticists are not scanning this thread to make another case against humans in the loop. Perhaps we should be out of the loop, but I can't see when and how that might come about.....
Well, actually, I thinks the Navy speaks pretty well for us ole humans and I'd pick us to rustle those robots in a pinch any day. We're the builders!
Robots are fine, but you begin to learn how smart a moron is when you try to program a robot. We will not be a spacefaring nation until we have able spacers and petty officers routinely running the ships.
July 7, 2007
Had you seen this story about
the thousands of rubber ducks floating around the world?
Nukes on America
I buy the Mogul theory on Roswell rather than the egg. But I will agree that the only entity that ever dumped thermonuclear weapons on the USA was the SAC. Back in 1963 I was the de facto CO of an outfit the senior sergeants of which were still pissed that the guys from Ft Meade instead of our outfit had mopped up the SAC dump of 3 or 4 of the sweet babies on a western Maryland hillside the year before. (Obviously, the safety cutouts worked perfectly, unlike the bomb bay mechanisms of the B-52 model preceding the current one.)
People who have never been shot at have a strange idea of what constitutes glory. The Geiger and scintillation counters of the time were pitiful. "You mean that you want to crawl on your hands and knees through four or five square miles of poison ivy covered hillside in the middle of August, sergeant, knowing that your success will be classified three or four clicks above TOP SECRET?" That is as elegant condensation of an afternoon's worth of syrup that I can manage. We had other fish to fry in 1963. In 1965 when the SAC had a similar little problem 50 miles south of Pittsburgh, the response team appears to have been a lot better trained.
Jerry, set down your coffee, and return your chair to the full upright and locked position before you read this. You do NOT want to spray coffee all over your monitor.
The imbecility of some people knows no bounds.
|This week:||Sunday, July
Colapsa la relación de Colombia con Estados Unidos
The trade pact Colombia negotiated in good faith with the U.S. and which it needs to sustain its dramatic economic recovery from the ruins of a 44-year war must wait until Democrats arbitrarily decide they're satisfied with the violence level. This gives every anti-free trade Colombian thug an incentive to keep killing.
And what do the Colombians think? Again, IBD:
There are some interesting things above. One is that this free trade agreement should, in theory, be aiding industrial production in the US. I've been watching this particular issue, as the Colombians faced increasing opposition in Congress to their efforts to end their civil war and drug issues. Isn't it interesting how often the things our Congress do result in exactly the opposite of their ostensible goals? A decade ago I didn't see any chance of the Colombians cleaning up their rebels and the drug cartels they were allied to, and now it is particularly galling to see this success story under attack by the only boobs in our country bigger than the ones found in strip clubs.
missing Art Bell
In which you wrote
>I miss Art Bell. He was reasonably sane...
I must agree
One of his strengths was that he got into broadcasting via ham radio and other forms of amatuer radio, and via the military in various area broadcasting in the western pacific and the Philipines (he has also visited mainland China)
This enforces a certain rigor of logic based on practical engineering because while electronics works by PFM, most of the time it either works or doesn't based on real principles, and all the sacrifices of white chickens in the world will not help, not much, usually.
Having a boat and dealing with old man sea is another similar activity where mistakes are not easily forgiven. Something falls over the side into Davy Jones' locker, Davy Jones will say thank you very much, and not return it.
So he while he would give people plenty of rope to let them hang themselves, you couldn't just snow him completely with smoke and mirrors.
- Roland Dobbins
He proceeds to show that prior to 1835 no one believed that the Medieval scholars believed the Earth was flat. His account of how this nonsense about the Medieval period became the "consensus view" of intellectuals makes for an interesting story, and one I recommend to everyone. It is a stark illustration of why "consensus" is not always a good measure of truth.
Mike Flynn (First author winner of the Heinlein Medal) has been giving lectures on Medieval science and scholarship for several years now. He has taken the trouble to find the correct view and present it. He also shows what nonsense this generation believes about the Medieval period of Western history.
As a colleague points out, the study does not show the relationship between lead and IQ, or between IQ and crime. Alas, it is easy enough to lower IQ with environmental means. Some are not reversible. I pointed this out in A Step Farther Out more than 30 years ago.
Took Jay and his buddy to the Transformers movie last night. It was doing very brisk business, and not all of it was teenaged/twentyish guys and the dates who consented to go with along with their dorky boyfriend's childhood toy fetish (seated across from us were a couple of thirtyish ladies, and there were other older unaccompanied women in the theater).
The CGI was very well done except that I think the "transforms" were shown to go quickly so that there was no by-eye obvious conservation of mass, even at the component level, between the "vehicle" and the "robot" forms. Of course, that doesn't address the standing question about why intelligent metal-based anthropomorphic extra-terrestrials would find it worth their while to transform into American road vehicles in the first place. The battle sequences were well done and stayed within the context of the film. The high-level DoD interaction shown was less believable (in one of the least developed and believable character moments, a young lady with a British accent, already having been personally admonished by the SecDef against wild speculation about the nature of the signal that they are trying to interpret, downloads a copy onto a flash card and carries it through security so that her hacker buddy, who apparently lives within walking distance of the Pentagon, can interrupt his streaming rap downloads and decrypt it before the FBI catches up with her). The love interest was more than just a bit comic-bookish, but was overall satisfying.
Overall, if you are capable of leaving your disbelief at home (or e-mailing it to another continent; even dropping it in the theater parking lot might be asking too much) it's a fun film. Jay loved it and has spent the morning googling sequel plans.
haven't seen it yet, but I expect I will. Thanks.
FOR THE CURRENT VIEW PAGE CLICK HERE
If you are not paying for this place, click here...
IF YOU SEND MAIL it may be published; if you want it private SAY SO AT THE TOP of the mail. I try to respect confidences, but there is only me, and this is Chaos Manor. If you want a mail address other than the one from which you sent the mail to appear, PUT THAT AT THE END OF THE LETTER as a signature. In general, put the name you want at the end of the letter: if you put no address there none will be posted, but I do want some kind of name, or explicitly to say (name withheld).
Note that if you don't put a name in the bottom of the letter I have to get one from the header. This takes time I don't have, and may end up with a name and address you didn't want on the letter. Do us both a favor: sign your letters to me with the name and address (or no address) as you want them posted. Also, repeat the subject as the first line of the mail. That also saves me time.
I try to answer mail, but mostly I can't get to all of it. I read it all, although not always the instant it comes in. I do have books to write too... I am reminded of H. P. Lovecraft who slowly starved to death while answering fan mail.
or the freefind search
If you subscribed:
If you didn't and haven't, why not?
Search: type in string and press return.
Strategy of Technology in pdf format:
Entire Site Copyright, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Jerry E. Pournelle. All rights reserved.