| Saturday,
April 8, 2006 Today's LA Times has a
story on why radio stations are all playing the same tunes now: they're
afraid they'll be investigated if they introduce any new bands or artists.
"Let some other station take the chance," said one program director after
hearing an enthusiastic pitch for a new band that had got some rave reviews.
"I don't want my emails being looked at because I put up a new band."
(I'll write the rest of this when I get an exact title to search for.
Google has never heard of this article although I read it in today's paper.
One gets used to being able to find things instantly and forgets that
indexing takes time. Meanwhile I have wasted enough time searching for the
article to reference. I need the exact title and writer's name.)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/
la-fi-playlist8apr08,1,2614938.story?coll=la-
headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true
Thanks to Mike for finding this for me.
But what I really need is to begin to document such matters: how we are
entering the democratic despotism that Tocqueville warned of. A fine network
of rules and regulations that stifles innovation and reduces us to sameness.
Of course Tocqueville did not see the anarchotyranny that inevitably
accompanies that state. And of course Pournelle's Iron Law
of Bureaucracy makes it inevitable that we will get there. Welcome to
the future.
And see mail.
==================
This morning's LA Times has a book review, although it is disguised as an
article on global warming. I can't find an on-line source, but that may be
coming later (as was the article referred to in the previous section). The
article is entitled "Dissecting a world of trouble," by Anne-Marie O'Connor.
Let me give you the first paragraph:
The causes and consequences of global warming
are still debated. But few still dispute its existence. According to NASA,
2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800's. The next four warmest were
2004, 2003, 2002, and 1998. The last time the Earth was this warm, by many
estimates, was 100,000 years ago. Anyone notice something
odd about this? The Earth had warmer years in the late 1800's, but it
hasn't been this warm for 100,000 years. Say what?
If you continue to the inside continuation you find this is a review of a
book by an Australian scientist, Tim Flannery, who will speak at Cal
Tech in Baxter Lecture Hall at 2 PM Sunday (tomorrow). I regret I won't be
able to get there. If any of you do, I would appreciate a report. Either he
is off his head, or Anne-Marie O'Connor is off hers (those two conditions
are not mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive).
We are, according to Flannery, about to experience disasters that set off
the eradication of 95% of the Earth's species. Flannery blames fossil fuels
for 80% of the Earth's warming. He predicts hurricanes if we don't stop
burning fossil fuels. Needless to say, he has a new book, The Weather Makers
(publisher not given in the review article, nor are Anne-Marie's credentials
for statements made on her own behalf).
"This is no part of any known cycle," said
Flannery, a burly Australian scientist who is a professor at the University
of Adelaide and likes to be photographed in full bush regalia.
(His full regalia includes a brimmed hat, but it isn't a Digger
Hat.)
"About 100,000 years ago, Flannery says, the
Earth was just slightly warmer than it is now -- and sea level was 12 feet
higher.
<snip>
"The biggest immediate issue," Flannery said,
"is the melting of the polar ice caps.
"We know that ice cap has been stable for at
least a million years and more likely 3 million years," he said. "The north
polar cap won't be there by 2020 and 2100 if it keeps up. Some people say it
won't be there in 15 years time. That polar ice cap reflects sunlight back
into space. Instead of reflecting the sun's energy, it is now absorbing the
sun's energy, and that is heating the planet more. The ice is much thinner,
maybe 40% of its thickness 30 to 40 years ago.
"You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar or a
Harvard graduate to see that's a problem."
I don't have to be a Harvard graduate to see that if the Earth were this
warm 100,000 years ago, but the polar ice cap was stable for 1 million years
or more, there is something wrong with his data. Nor do I recall that 95% of
all species died off 100,000 years ago, but my education in those matters
may be deficient. Does anyone know of such a die-off?
Flannery also tells us that hurricanes will make the East Coast
uninhabitable. Well, to be fair, he says it "may" get to that. But beware
2008.
And finally, he tells us, we ought to engage in grass roots pressure and
local measures. Rooftop solar heaters for hot water, as an example. Now I
have no objection to such measures, and indeed if you have the proper facing
and sloping roof and your house structure is strong enough to support a lot
of extra weight, heating your swimming pool by passive solar heaters can
save money, provided you live where there's enough solar energy.
But I also know that at higher latitudes you get less sunlight, and for
horizontal surfaces less than that, so that if you're up there in the Arctic
there won't be all that much insolation to begin with, particularly on flat
ground surfaces. But that's another story.
I haven't time to look into all of Flannery's allegations and
predictions, although they seem more or less consistent with things Hansen
has been saying. Perhaps he is right. But I still don't understand how the
ice cap can have been there for a million years when 100,000 years ago the
Earth was warmer and the seas 12 feet higher. Perhaps someone more learned
in these matters can explain it to us. I fear Anne-Marie O'Connor didn't
think to ask.
================
Subject: New defensive shield
Dr. Pournelle, My son showed me this today and my
first thought was of the Langston Field.
http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf
Keep up the good work!
Ron Booker
WOW. Actually, of course, rather than a "force field" this is an active
counter-measure, but it sure looks good. And while it can't detect and
protect ships from torpedoes, it sure ought to be able to keep them safe
from many kinds of cruise missiles. It won't protect anyone from pure
ballistic attacks, but attacks with shaped charges and active warheads
may be a lot smaller threat now.
Thanks. I wish we did have a "field" but active counter measures will
have to do.
Saturday TOP
Current Mail
|
