| Friday, May
30, 2003
Begin with a picture that may not be serious, but
it's fun..
Subject: Polar bear vs. SSN.
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/
default.asp?target=bear_sub1.htm
------------ Roland Dobbins
Heh.
And what caused me to find the
link to my old article on this:
Dr. Pournelle:
Years ago I remember reading in one of the science
fiction/fact book format magazines (title forgotten) of your doctoral
thesis on the idea that political labelling or postioning should be
described by a multi axis approach rather than something like the useless
left/right labels. That concept stuck with me and I have often found
myself asking where on the grid some politician or acquaintance would fit.
The other day reading National Review Online's
Corner I checked the following link which took me to a quiz I had always
wanted to take (albeit with less loaded questions).
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/reading.html
Reading the text on the site they seem to attribute
this quiz to you if I remember your biography correctly without naming you
explicitly.
After searching your site for mention of this I
thought you might not have heard of it or would be curious to see what
they had made of it.
Thanks for the stories and the articles.
Kenneth Grover Al Khobar KSA
Well, it's clearly somewhat derived from my work,
and appeared after I published my dissertation, but that's all I can say.
It reads well. Some of the questions are conditionals, and if you believe
the conditional impossible then a false statement implies the universe,
which is to say, some of the items aren't very predictive at all.
I seem to have come out right in the middle on
their exam. I never thought of myself as a wishy washy middleton...
This is a VERY well-written piece, by Ted Turner,
expressing opposition to the FCC's move to relax the rules about media
cross-ownership.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/articles/A56132-2003May29.html
An excerpt:
"Why should
the country care? When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas.
People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are
independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big
guys; they have to innovate. So they are less obsessed with earnings than
they are with ideas. They're willing to take risks. When, on my
initiative, Turner Communications (now Turner Broadcasting) bought its
first TV station, which at the time was losing $50,000 a month, my board
strongly objected. When TBS bought its second station, which was in even
worse shape than the first, our accountant quit in protest.
Large media corporations are far more
profit-focused and risk-averse. They sometimes confuse short-term profits
and long-term value. They kill local programming because it's expensive,
and they push national programming because it's cheap -- even if it runs
counter to local interests and community values. For a corporation to
launch a new idea, you have to get the backing of executives who are
obsessed with quarterly earnings and afraid of being fired for an idea
that fails. They often prefer to sit on the sidelines waiting to buy the
businesses or imitate the models of the risk-takers who succeed. (Two
large media corporations turned down my invitation to invest in the launch
of CNN.)"
--John R. Strohm
I fear I don't much listen to Turner any more,
but perhaps I should? Anyway, thanks.
Subject: Note from NYT article on the Shuttle Debris
Experiment--
Jerry,
I don't think I heard this type of thinking about
the foam impact when they just had the interpolation. sigh...
Charles Adams, Bellevue, NE
Mockup Wing Is Torn by Foam in Shuttle Test
By JOHN SCHWARTZ with MATTHEW L. WALD http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/national/30SHUT.html
Last paragraph
"A NASA engineer working with the
investigators said the results were impressive but could not be conclusive
until the tests were performed again using reinforced carbon-carbon. 'All
of the analysis and investigating and theorizing in the world just goes
right down the tubes as soon as you have experimental information,' he
said. 'The hardware doesn't lie.'"
==============
About the "It's Nucular" article: you said
"I'm curious as to what's interesting in it."
I was interested in the technology of the fourth
generation "HGTR" nuclear reactors. The author of the article
was shocked, shocked, that the Bush administration wants to fund and build
a whole bunch of nuke plants as part of the hydrogen economy. I was
thinking that it makes sense.
A quote from the article:
-- cut here -- cut here -- cut here -- cut here --
unlike today's light-water reactors, HTGR reactors—which would be cooled
by helium gas—should burn up their radioactive materials more
efficiently. The new facilities would then retain their waste for up to 40
years before carting it off to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Proponents of HTGR also boast that the reactors
require none of the concrete and steel containment walls that keep
radioactive material locked inside light-water reactors. The uranium and
graphite pellets inside HTGR reactors—even if all of the coolant is lost—would
heat up so slowly they're unlikely to melt down.
Officials at the Idaho lab hinted at a dramatic
exhibit of its pilot reactor's safety. "We could even do a
demonstration in which we dump the helium coolant," said James Lake,
associate laboratory director. "That would be a way to show the
public in a visible way how safe the technology is." -- cut here --
cut here -- cut here -- cut here --
It's easy for the so-called Greens to point fingers
and moan about energy policy. I'd be happier to see a bunch of nuke plants
get built, and happier still if those nuke plants were used to drive a
hydrogen economy. And even happier still if solar power satellites were
built, but that's another battle for another email.
Anyway, maybe you already knew about all this stuff,
but it was news to me. I have to admit that when I first skimmed the
article, I didn't even realize how anti-nuke it was; I was more interested
in the technology, and my eyes slid right past the loaded phrases like
"seemingly benign".
-- Steve R. Hastings "Vita est" steve@hastings.org
http://www.blarg.net/~steveha
I guess I thought HTGR was pretty old
stuff. Anyway, thanks for the pointer to what the New Left is
thinking...
Jerry :
I read the article cited by Steve Hastings with some
interest. The Voice isn't known for great scientific accuracy, let alone
engineering knowledge, but this article stands out from even the Voice's
usual levels of mediocrity in understanding technology. One sentence in
particular jumped out for me.
"Scientists have not yet designed a nuclear
facility whose safety and efficiency trumps that of gas or coal."
Oh? And the basis for this determination is what,
exactly?
Deaths? More people have died around gas and coal
fired generating systems in North America than in any nuclear handling
(and we'll carefully exempt certain other former USSR countries here - the
records for boiler explosions there are _worse_). It's entirely arguable
that the increased deaths in _one year_ due to particulates in the
atmosphere generated by burning coal outweigh _all_ of the deaths for
every nuclear disaster known (and note that these are, on the whole,
unrelated to power generation).
Efficiency? Lovely argument, so long as the overall
costs of the fuels are only compared at endpoint, and we don't ever allow
enough nuclear reactor systems to be built to allow for any economy of
scale in construction and operation. This also easily ignores the concept
of cracking water at the reactor for hydrogen, which changes the net
efficiency for production of the end products (i.e., electricity and
hydrogen).
Once again, we have wholly unqualified people in the
press commenting on safety with supercilious authority.
The only way to make a clear comparison of these
alternatives is to carefully look at the entire power sequence, from raw
material feeds through to power products, considering the total expected
mortality for a given power level (e.g., 100 MW), and including
environmental effects at all of the stages (i.e., mining of coal or
uranium ore, refining of ore, transport of coal/ore, feed systems for coal
ore, "burning" of coal/ore, disposal of wastes).
And as you've pointed out, the handling of nuclear
wastes is actually a non-issue when it's considered in an objective
fashion - just stack glassine-enclosed wastes within a containment area
far from people. This is a non-trivial problem when looking at the control
of particulate emissions from coal burning - that technology simply isn't
comparable to what we have for the handling of big glass bricks !
Insofar as the risk levels go for coal facilities
vs. nuclear, one needs to address the essential equation of risk :
Risk = Hazard Consequence x Likelihood of
Consequence
Much to the chagrin of lawyers, this is usually
expressed in terms of fatalities per annum. Most of the world (e.g., the
Netherlands, Hong Kong) handles these issues through "acceptable risk
criteria" with clear-cut levels of risk allowed for new and existing
facilities, but we're handcuffed by liability concerns here in the United
States, thus preventing objective discussions on this.
Risk assessment is a mature and reproducible
technology, although one will never find the Voice admitting this, and it
produces results that allow for a rational discussion.
Novices to the field, as well as those who would
like to swing the results, typically like to take the worst potential
hazard consequence and then multiply that by the likelihood of the _least_
hazard consequence, thereby creating a nifty doomsday scenario. Developing
the consequences in a reasonable manner, while taking a conservative (that
word used in an engineering context) approach to likelihoods requires a
thorough and deep understanding of the engineering of the systems, as well
as a correspondingly expert understanding of how releases, explosions, and
contamination effects propagate.
I spent time at the master's and doctoral levels
studying this, applied these principles in the field for many years ,
authored papers on the subject, and continue to work with this every
single day, so I feel I can hold a reasonably informed opinion. I would
politely ask what the qualifications of the Voice writer are with respect
to the subject of safety and acceptable risk.
The key to moving the very important discussions on
energy forward in our country is getting the basic concepts in front of
people, and then being able to get past the inevitable doomsayers for whom
allowing even discussion of nuclear systems is tantamount to advocating
the poisoning of babies. I can do the former, but the latter is still
sadly outside my grasp.
For now.
John P.
Yeah
==========
Subject: The Norm of Minimum Effort
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8069
Roland Dobbins
=============
Subject: I feel safer already!
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1104230,00.asp
----- Roland Dobbins
==================
Subject: Overclocking The Ashkenazim
The Parkinson your previous correspondent had in
mind is not the wonderful C Northcote but the turgid Michael, who
interviews supposedly wonderful people on British television. Maybe the
sense of intellectual complacency these people exude gives some viewers
the impression that they actually are highly intelligent, but I wouldn't
bet on it. I want to suggest that a consistently high level of endogamy
combined with Talmudic study leads to a more intelligent gene pool.
Talmudic logic is fantastic brain gymnastics, partly because it requires
not just the use but also the selective misuse of what the apikoros (i.e.
Epicureans, Rabbinic term for followers of Greek thought) would regard as
"good logic".
Rowan
Ah. Thanks
===================
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
You've probably seen this report in the NYTimes
(link requires registration):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/national/30SHUT.html
HOUSTON, May 29 -- A piece of insulating foam shot
at a mocked-up shuttle wing opened a long slit in its leading edge, which
may help to explain what caused the loss of the space shuttle Columbia,
investigators said today.
Sincerely,
Larry Weinstein
---------------- Lawrence Weinstein Associate
Professor of Physics Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529
I am shocked. Shocked.
Subject: Well, knock me over with a feather boa
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
Date: May 30, 2003 subject: Well, knock me over with
a feather boa
Dear Jerry:
I never knew the Village People were Republicans,
but see http://www.madblast.com/funflash/swf/theusa.swf
Best, Stephen
DELENDAM ESSE SAUDI ARABIA!
Weird.
Subject: FW: The geek test
Heh .. I hesitate to tell you, but I qualified as an
extreme geek…
http://www.innergeek.us/geek.html
Tracy Walters
What a surprise!
Subject: USB Watch
I just received mine from Airborne Express. I am
once again moved to the "top geek" level in the software
development company I work for.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/5eec/
Nor do I have to carry around my USB Flash Drive any
longer.
Tracy
King of the Geeks!
==========
Subject: Definitely iatrogenic (priority one).
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=528
&u=/ap/20030527/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_bug&printer=1
Roland
I suppose these things happen...
And, HURRAH:
Hi, I saw your note about your dissertation, which I
checked out of the library at UW recently and read. I agree with you that
it reads well and is remarkably up-to-date now, and must have been
remarkably prescient about the implosion of the long ensconced left-right
“continuum” in academic thinking on this subject.
For what it is worth, I kept it on my desk for a
while (is your desk clean?) and I did get a note from the library that
someone else wanted it, so a couple of folks are still reading the old
typescript copy filed in the library.
Best wishes,
Michael D. Ward
Political Science, UW
Astonishing, but hurrah!
On an important subject:
Dear Jerry:
NBC News tonight had a segment which went into this
whole thing in detail. Among the revelations were that Lynch's initial
injuries came when the vehicle she was driving flipped over. She was
captured unconscious or close too. Apparently some eager beaver in HQ
thought it would be a good idea, in direct violation of Army Regulations,
to lie to a reporter and make up a morale boosting story. Stupid, because
the truth always comes out.
This takes nothing away from Lynch who will be a
long time recovering and whose neighbors have prepared her parent's house
to be handicap friendly. Her family is being very close-mouthed about all
this, which speaks well of them. She'll still be decorated. POW Medal and
maybe a Purple Heart because the injuries were a result of combat action.
This kind of thing is exactly why the Army is so careful about awards of
all kinds, especially those for combat action. Part of the reason is to
prevent some grand-stander from handing out something on impulse. You will
recall there was that kind of pressure.
The thing that civilians never seem to get is that
there is a long logistics train and people who are not in the front ranks
are equally or sometimes even more at risk. It should be remembered that a
number of other people in the 507th Maintenance Company died in action. I
am hoping that someone will be able to find out exactly what did happen.
Pray for Jessie.
Sincerely, Francis Hamit
I missed the story but I am not astonished. One
doesn't expect maintenance company troops to fight like tigresses. She did
her duty and has nothing whatever to be ashamed of.
Liberal Education in a
nutshell
In an article titled "An Education in 404
Pages," by James Baccus, Vanderbilt Magazine, Spring 2003 issue, page
11, the author cites the following as the most significant recommended
reading for someone interested in a liberal education but without the time
to read the works in full.
1. Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self Reliance."
2. Alexis de Tocqueville, "The Principle of Interest Rightly
Understood," from Democracy in America.
3. Thycydides, "the Melian Dialogue," from the History of the
Peloponnesian War.
4. James Madison, Federalist 10 and 51.
5. Adam Smith, "On the Division of Labor," from The Wealth of
Nations
6. Voltaire, Letter 15, "On the System of Gravitation."
7. Richard Feynman, "The Uncertainty of Science," from The
Meaning of It All.
8. Plato, "The Cave," from The Republic.
9. Michel de Montaigne, "Of Cannibals," from The Essays.
10. John Stuart Mill, "Of the Libety of Thought and Discussion,"
from On Liberty.
11. Karl Popper, Chapter 10, The Open Society and Its Enemies
12. Fyodor Dostoevsky, "The Grand Inquisitor," from The Brothers
Kaqramazov.
13. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail.
14. Virginia Woolf, Chapter 6, A Room of One's Own.
15. Abraham Lincoln, "The Gettysburg Address."
16. Suetonius, "Agustus, Afterward Deified," from The Twelve
Caesars.
17. George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language."
18. Edmon Burke, "Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol."
19. Samuel Johnson, Number 21, The Rambler.
20. Immaual Kant, "On Perpetual Peace."
21. Henry David Thoreau, "On Seeing," from his Journal.
22. Plutarch, "On Contentment."
23. Soren Kierkegaard, "The Story of Abraham," from Fear and
Trembling.
24. William Hazelitt, "On the Feeling of Immortality in Youth."
Jim Woosley
I might quibble here and there, and I think some
of those entries are less important than some that were left out, but
there's nothing wrong with that list. I'd certainly include a couple of
Plutarch's lives in addition to the essay; they're fun anyway. And Cicero
on how to make a speech isn't fun but is very much worth slogging through.
And see below for more
discussion on an important subject.
Subject: A triumph of sense over reflex, for once.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3909292.html
---------------------- Roland Dobbins
You can see it that way. I see idiots managing to
become morons. The federal law is stupid, the no exceptions rules are
imbecilic, and the whole notion that we are safer as a result of this kind
of happy horse crap is idiotic.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
