![\"clip_image001\"](\"http:\/\/www.jerrypournelle.com\/chaosmanor\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/clip_image00119.gif\" "\\"clip_image001\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt is 1600 and on schedule Time Warner is extremely slow and often halted. This happens regularly. Fortunately it will fix itself in an hour or so, or at least it has done so daily so far. I have posted a large and diversified mailbag today; you will find it below. <\/p>\n
Obama and the \u2018Inevitable Critics\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n We are dealing with a case of Mutually Assured Obfuscation.<\/b><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/bret-stephens-obama-and-the-inevitable-critics-1428361609?mod=rss_opinion_main<\/a> <\/b><\/p>\n A satellite image of Iran\u2019s Fordo uranium-enrichment facility in 2013. Photo: DigitalGlobe\/Institute for Science and International Security <\/p>\n By <\/p>\n Bret Stephens <\/p>\n April 6, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET <\/p>\n 1184 COMMENTS <\/a><\/p>\n \u2018So when you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world\u2019s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?\u201d<\/p>\n That was Barack Obama<\/a> on Thursday, defending his Iran diplomacy while treating its opponents to the kind of glib contempt that is the mark of the progressive mind. Since I\u2019m one of those inevitable critics, let me answer his question.<\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s worse. Much worse.<\/p>\n Yes, because what the president calls \u201cthis verifiable deal\u201d fails the first test of verification\u2014mutual agreement and clarity as to what, exactly, is in it.<\/p>\n Brett Stephens concludes that the deal proposed by Obama will lead to an Iran with usable weapons in quantity; and therefore preventative war is preferable. He continues:<\/p>\n But let\u2019s accept the president\u2019s premise. Should the current deal hold, Iran will be able to develop all the nuclear infrastructure it wants by the time my youngest child is in college. And it will do so not over Washington\u2019s objections, but with our blessing.<\/p>\n Maybe by then the Iranian regime will have changed for the better. More likely not. Their economy will have revived thanks to the end of sanctions. Their geopolitical position will be stronger thanks to the internal convulsions of some of their neighbors. And they will have a nuclear infrastructure capable of producing many bombs on short notice\u2014too short for the U.S. to do anything about it. The same will likely be true of Saudi Arabia and Turkey.<\/p>\n So let me rephrase the president\u2019s question: Is targeted military action against Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities\u2014with all the unforeseen consequences that might entail\u2014a better option than a grimly foreseeable future of a nuclear Iran, threatening its neighbors, and a proliferated Middle East, threatening the world?<\/p>\n I know my answer. What\u2019s yours?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It is a grim question, and we may be sure that no one likely to become President of the United States will begin a new war in the Middle East. The answer of the United States has been given: Iran will have the bomb, and, as Stephens says, with our assistance in shoring up the Iranian economy. Iran has repeatedly stated that these are end times, and the mission of their nation is the extirpation of Israel.<\/p>\n The Israelis are well aware of all this. <\/p>\n There is also this:<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/business\/technology\/iran-positions-itself-to-be-a-tech-leader-in-turbulent-middle-east\/2015\/04\/06\/e52ad4ea-d948-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html?hpid=z1<\/a><\/p>\n Tech investments show an Iran eager to end isolation (WP)<\/p>\n By Craig Timberg<\/a> April 6 at 12:31 PM<\/p>\n As world powers have been working to curb Iran\u2019s nuclear program, the Islamic Republic has been bolstering its ambitions in cyberspace, positioning itself as a potential technological leader in a turbulent and strategically crucial region.<\/p>\n Iran in recent years has inaugurated a new, high-capacity data link to Europe, introduced 3G and 4G cellular service to millions of customers and become a major buyer in a bustling new marketplace for IP addresses \u2014 the fundamental building blocks of the online world.<\/p>\n Western experts watching these development see little evidence that these steps are intended to bolster Iran\u2019s already formidable cyberwar capabilities. Instead they see a nation making investments in civilian technology that could help Iran build a more modern, open economy, especially if a tentative nuclear deal struck last week yields a permanent accord and an easing of international sanctions.<\/p>\n Despite deep-seated wariness of Iran, some observers see these technological developments as a sign \u2014 along with the nuclear talks themselves \u2014 that President Hassan Rouhani is eager to normalize Iran\u2019s relations with the outside world after years of combative isolation.<\/p>\n Iranian companies over the past 15 months have bought more than 1 million IP addresses, said Dyn<\/a>, a New Hampshire-based Internet performance analysis company. At roughly $10 per address, this represents a substantial investment in making it easier for Iranians to get online.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I have long said that the best weapons against Iran are smart phones and tablet computers: the West\u2019s panzer divisions among the weapons of cultural mass destruction. I am not really being whimsical when I say we ought to drop cell phones from airplanes in Iran while simultaneously using technology to let them be used.<\/p>\n Patent case could shift power balance in tech industry ft<\/b><\/p>\n Richard Waters in San Francisco <\/p>\n A US appeals court is set to hear a landmark patent case on Wednesday that could change the way royalty rates are set for commonly used intellectual property in the tech industry.<\/p>\n The case, pitting Microsoft<\/a> against Google<\/a>, has already involved a lower court in setting patent rates for the first time, in a move that critics warn will upend the balance of power between leading tech companies. <\/p>\n Microsoft brought the case in 2010 against Motorola Mobility, the handset maker later acquired by Google. The search company sold Motorola\u2019s operating business to Lenovo last year but kept its patents and has now taken the case to the court of appeals.<\/p>\n The dispute centres on so-called standard-essential patents<\/a>, which cover technology that is included in industry-wide technology standards. Since others have to use the technology if they want their own products to meet an industry standard, the companies that submit their patents for approval by standards bodies are required to license them out on \u201creasonable and non-discriminatory\u201d, or RAND, terms.<\/p>\n Microsoft sued Motorola after the handset maker asked for 2.25 per cent of the final product price for use of several of its patents that are included in standards for WiFi and video compression technology. Microsoft said the demand would have cost it $4bn a year. Judge James Robart, in a federal court in Seattle, laid out a different method for calculating the royalties that would instead cost Microsoft less than $2m a year.<\/p>\n If upheld, Judge Robart\u2019s approach could tilt the balance of power in negotiations away from companies that own large portfolios of commonly used patents and instead favour those \u2014 like Microsoft or Apple<\/a> \u2014 whose businesses are based more on implementing technology standards in their products.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to be very significant indeed. Nobody quite understands what the term [RAND] means,\u201d said Alexander Poterack, chief executive of General Patent Corp, a US intellectual property firm.<\/p>\n In its appeal brought in Motorola\u2019s name, Google has argued that the judge was wrong to take up Microsoft\u2019s complaint in the first place, since the Motorola royalty demand was only the opening shot in a negotiation that should have been left to run its course. The court could have ruled on Microsoft\u2019s breach of contract complaint without getting involved in the thorny issue of rate-setting, it claims.<\/p>\n \u201cThe litigation set bad policy by encouraging parties to run to court rather than negotiate\u201d<\/p>\n – David Balto, a former FTC chief of competition policy<\/p>\n <\/b><\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe litigation set bad policy by encouraging parties to run to court rather than negotiate,\u201d said David Balto, a former chief of competition policy at the Federal Trade Commission.<\/p>\n Some in the tech industry also argue that, if the ruling stands, companies will not be as willing to allow their technology to be included in industry standards, since it would rob them of much of their negotiating leverage.<\/p>\n The calculation method that Judge Robarts came up with \u201cwould conceivably apply to lower the reasonable royalty available to every single [standard-essential patent]\u201d, the American Intellectual Property Law Association wrote in an amicus brief to the court.<\/p>\n Companies who have joined the opposition to the ruling include Qualcomm<\/a>, many of whose patents cover mobile communications technologies<\/a> that have been adopted in industry standards. The calculation method is a \u201cone-sided directive that advances only implementers\u2019 interests in obtaining licences at the lowest possible cost,\u201d it said in a court filing supporting Motorola\u2019s position. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Stanford scientists have invented a flexible, high-performance aluminum battery that charges in about 1 minute. Credit: Mark Shwartz, Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University<\/p>\n Stanford University scientists have invented the first high-performance aluminum battery that’s fast-charging, long-lasting and inexpensive. Researchers say the new technology offers a safe alternative to many commercial batteries in wide use today.<\/p>\n “We have developed a rechargeable aluminum battery<\/a> that may replace existing storage devices, such as alkaline batteries, which are bad for the environment, and lithium-ion batteries, which occasionally burst into flames,” said Hongjie Dai, a professor of chemistry at Stanford. “Our new battery<\/a> won’t catch fire, even if you drill through it.”<\/p>\n Dai and his colleagues describe their novel aluminum-ion battery in “An ultrafast rechargeable aluminum-ion battery,” in the April 6 advance online edition of the journal Nature<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Cheap and safe energy storage makes irregular power sources like solar panels and windmills much more usable; and of course electric cars and trucks much more economic.<\/p>\n Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.<\/p>\n Chaos Manor View Tuesday, April 07, 2015 It is 1600 and on schedule Time Warner is extremely slow and often halted. This happens regularly. Fortunately it will fix itself in an hour or so, or at least it has done so daily so far. I have posted a large and \u2026 Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a>ENLARGE <\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Ultra-fast charging aluminum battery offers safe alternative to conventional batteries<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"