| Sunday, November
22, 2009
=======================
MWA on the Harlequin Enterprises:
Click to view this email in a browser <http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/
208752/4a27450be0/347001009/9d86972a5d/>
<http://www.mysterywriters.org>
Dear MWA Members:
click here <http://cts.vresp.com/c/?
MysteryWritersOfAmer/4a27450be
0/9d86972a5d/21e6f9bc8f> Recently, Harlequin Enterprises launched
two new business ventures aimed at aspiring writers, the Harlequin Horizons
self-publishing program and the eHarlequin Manuscript Critique service (aka
"Learn to Write"), both of which are widely promoted on its website and
embedded in the manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints.
Mystery Writers of America (MWA) is deeply concerned
about the troubling conflict-of-interest issues created by these ventures,
particularly the potentially misleading way they are marketed to aspiring
writers on the Harlequin website.
It is common for disreputable publishers to try to
profit from aspiring writers by steering them to their own for-pay
editorial, marketing, and publishing services. The implication is that by
paying for those services, the writer is more likely to sell his manuscript
to the publisher. Harlequin recommends the "eHarlequin Manuscript Critique
Service" in the text of its manuscript submission guidelines for all of its
imprints and include a link to "Harlequin Horizons," its new self-publishing
arm, without any indication that these are advertisements.
That, coupled with the fact that these businesses
share the Harlequin name, may mislead writers into believing they can
enhance their chances of being published by Harlequin by paying for these
services. Offering these services violates long-standing MWA rules for
inclusion on our Approved Publishers List.
On November 9, Mystery Writers of America sent a
letter to Harlequin about the "eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service,"
notifying Harlequin that it is in violation of our rules and suggesting
steps that Harlequin could take to remain on our Approved Publishers list.
The steps outlined at that time included removing mention of this for-pay
service entirely from its manuscript submission guidelines, clearly
identifying any mention of this program as paid advertisement, and, adding
prominent disclaimers that this venture was totally unaffiliated with the
editorial side of Harlequin, and that paying for this service is not a
factor in the consideration of manuscripts. Since that letter went out,
Harlequin has launched "Harlequin Horizons," a self-publishing program.
MWA's November 9 letter asks that Harlequin respond to
our concerns and recommendations by December 15. We look forward to
receiving their response and working with them to protect the interests of
aspiring writers. If MWA and Harlequin are unable to reach an agreement, MWA
will take appropriate action which may include removing Harlequin from the
list of MWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications
from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by
Harlequin will not be eligible for the Edgar Awards.
We are taking this action because we believe it is
vitally important to alert our members of unethical and predatory publishing
practices that take advantage of their desire to be published. We respect
Harlequin and its authors and hope the company will take the appropriate
corrective measures.
This e-bulletin was prepared by Margery Flax on behalf
of MWA's National Board of Directors.
========================
Re: A Response to Colonel Couvillon on UAV by S
There is one significant difference between aerial and
other types of crewed weapon platforms (tanks, ships, etc). Current
technology can produce aerial platforms capable of withstanding maneuvering
stresses beyond that tolerable by the human body. Smart missiles are a type
of UAV which take advantage of this fact, since they can turn faster in a
smaller radius than piloted aircraft. So we already have a mix of
piloted/unpiloted in the air. There are obvious combat advantages to making
your entire flying weapons platform (machine guns, cannon, missile
launchers) able to withstand high G stresses... disadvantages too, and the
nature of both will change with changes in technology.
Most arguments I'm reading are qualitative--Piloted is
Good vs. Unpiloted is Good--rather than advocating finding out through trial
and test which is best (or in what mix) for various missions now, and in
future mission scenarios.
The limits to ground and naval machine design are not
the physical acceleration limits of their crews. Until one can build or even
design a tank which can pull 100 Gs, I think that this particular comparison
is not valid.
Greg Hemsath
==
UAV debate
Your correspondent "S" seems to have a bit of a raw
nerve on the subject. His point about the vulnerability of satellites is
well taken, but that is an issue of tactics that does little to dilute the
potential value of UAVs. He assumes that the current operational model,
where the operators remain stateside with satellite communications to the
UAVs in-theater, is the only possible model. In fact, it's probably not even
the optimal model.
Put that same control room either in-theater or very
near it. Loft either an SR-71 or a UAV designed for the purpose to an
altitude of 80,000 feet (or perhaps higher, with the proper UAV design.)
This aircraft, manned or unmanned, serves solely as a radio repeater. At
80,000 feet your horizon is 348 statute (302 nautical) miles. Mind you,
that's the line of sight to a *ground* station. An aircraft in flight will
be within line of sight even farther away. If you need more distance, loft a
second one and create a chain of repeaters. Satellites are a nice way to do
this, but not a necessary way. In fact, given the current cost to launch,
the chain of high altitude drone repeaters should be very cost effective, as
well as easily replaced. An aircraft carrier would make a perfect base for
such a UAV system and coincidentally, that's our primary forward air defense
unit already.
As to his comments about replacing tank commanders
with remote control, I suspect that too will come. The only piece that can't
reliably be remote controlled is the PBI.
Jim Keech
Figures taken from here
http://showcase.netins.net/web/wallio/FOOTPRINT.html
================
Solar power generation around the clock
"... which holds 4.4 million gallons of molten salt.
When the heliostats focus the sunlight onto the receiver the salt is heated
to over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
When it is needed, such as at night or at peak times,
the heat is released by passing the molten salt through a steam generator
that drives a turbine to produce electricity."
http://www.physorg.com/news176632405.html
Bill Shields
============
Climate emails
Dear Dr Pournelle,
I disagree with you on what the internal emails of the
East Anglia University show. I have not read all the emails, it being a
rather large archive. But in the ones I did look at, I do not see angry men
determined to suppress their opponents' views; I see scientists who believe
that their opponents' argument is very bad, and are determined to show where
it fails. The phrases that stick out in my mind are "they do not
understand", "they have no idea how this works", "did they read our paper?"
They plan how to best respond in the limited space available in a journal
article; so-and-so to address this argument, the other to say a few words
about that one, ignore the ones that have been responded to previously. This
is no conspiracy, it is how journal articles are made. As with laws and
sausage, perhaps it is better for one's peace of mind not to examine the
process too closely, but the product should not be criticised on these
grounds.
I also note that the emails refer to arguments in
articles and at scientific conferences, not in the press. This does not
match the view that the mainstream climatologists are suppressing their
opponents. To argue loudly for one's opinion is no suppression!
That is my view from looking at a random sample of the
emails; what's being bandied about in the press is by no means random, of
course, it is selected for maximum damage, and I must admit that the phrase
"hide the decline" is vastly unfortunate. I would hesitate to indict anyone
of fraud over a single phrase in an email, however, because I'm well aware
that I too use a lot of very specific jargon - specific, that is, to single
analyses and even to single plots, not to the field of particle physics - in
talking to my colleagues, and I am not prepared to swear that none of it
would be damaging if thus taken out of context. There is an art as well as a
science to presenting data clearly, and in that context "hide the decline"
might be quite innocuous. As for "trick", I see no problem at all; this is
just how a scientist refers to anything but a bog-standard linear plot with
circular markers. "Suppose you make the right-hand axis logarithmic?" "Ah
yes, Mike's old trick."
Regards,
Rolf Andreassen.
==
More damning quotes from the CRU emails.
<http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-
Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-
ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-
revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-
Climate-Change-Examiner>
- Roland Dobbins
The attitude shown seems plain.
==
Collusion, Corruption, Manipulation and Obstruction.
<http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/>
--- Roland Dobbins
==
'I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in
the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards)
and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.'
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/
2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails>
- Roland Dobbins
Passionate defense of an opinion is required of
lawyers who assemble evidence and cases; that is not science.
==
Conspiracy?
Hello Jerry,
You provided this today: "But for the moment the
Consensus begins to look more and more like a Conspiracy."
Given the people who are the high priests of the
'Church of Global Warming' and the actions that they propose to combat
'Global Warming', it has been obvious from the beginning that 'Anthropogenic
Global Warming' was a problem that was invented (and continues to be
defended to the death in the face of actual, contradictory data) to justify
the imposition of the 'solutions' that were already in hand.
It appears now that, even though data falsifying
'Global Warming Theology' is beginning to reach the public and stories are
appearing in the press noting that the actual climate does not match the
climate models and that the climateers have no idea why, the 'solutions'
WILL be implemented.
We can hope not, but hoping against the imposition of
an idiotic government program, which program dramatically increases the
power of government over its citizens, has always been a long shot. In this
case???
Bob Ludwick
=================
Subject: Just when you thought it was safe to go back
into the water
Jerry,
Perhaps the Great Recession can still slide into the
Second Great Depression:
---
Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for
potential 'global collapse'
Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a
possible "global economic collapse" over the next two years, mapping a
strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.
In a report entitled "Worst-case debt scenario", the
bank's asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely
transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a
fresh set of problems.
Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich
economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It
must be reduced by the hard slog of "deleveraging", for years.
'Debt levels risk another crisis'
"As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we
have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse," said the
68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of
the dangers, not a forecast.
Under the French bank's "Bear Case" scenario (the
gloomiest of three possible outcomes), the dollar would slide further and
global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble
again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.
Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even
without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc
of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan.
Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a
decade.
The underlying debt burden is greater than it was
after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing
populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. "High public
debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a
point of no return for government debt," it said.
Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments
as a lesser of evils.
If so, gold would go "up, and up, and up" as the only
safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if
the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down
debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income
ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.
The bank said the current crisis displays "compelling
similarities" with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big
difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global
economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world
to pursue this strategy at the same time.
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/
6599281/Societe-Generale-tells-clients-how-to-
prepare-for-global-collapse.html
CP, Connecticut
==
Washington Examiner:: Stimulus boondoggle filled with
fraud, abuse
Does this go into the Business-as-usual department? My
thesis is that, after a time lag, changing demographics makes corruption
worse and worse, and that the significance of the last election is that the
catch-up between demography and polity is doubling even that of the Clinton
and second Bush administrations.
If so, it's business-worse-than-usual.
Which is right?
Stimulus boondoggle filled with fraud, abuse
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/
politics/Hopes-for-another-stimulus-run-into-
questions-about-what_s-already-been-spent-
8474970-68748502.htm l et seq.
By: Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional
Correspondent November 3, 2009
Fraud and abuse weigh down stimulus package
* After a flurry of stimulus spending,
questionable projects pile up
* Fraudsters made the most of homebuyer tax
credits
* Was the stimulus worth the cost?
* White House moves to control waste and
fraud
As Congress and the White House weigh another
round of stimulus spending, they do so in the face of questions about
whether the hundreds of billions of dollars spent so far have been worth
it, not to mention mounting evidence that the programs have been subjected
to rampant waste and fraud.
Only a fraction of the $757 billion stimulus
has been spent since the bill was signed into law more than eight month
ago, and it has yielded few jobs for the money, with even the most
optimistic figure provided by the White House giving each job saved or
created a $92,000 taxpayer price tag. Other estimates of per-job
expenditures are much higher.
The $10 billion, first-time homebuyer tax
credit, which the Senate last week voted to extend until May, is riddled
with fraud, according to an audit, in part because the Internal Revenue
Service does not want to require homebuyers to provide verification
showing that they are qualified for the $8,000 credit.
Voters are starting to question the worth of
these expensive initiatives. A Rasmussen Reports poll last month found
just 29 percent of U.S. voters wanted a second stimulus, while 62 percent
were opposed to it.
sferrechio@washingtonexaminer.com
Call it what you like--it deserves a complete
investigation. (afp) Any reporter worth their salt knows that when
government decides to investigate itself, exonerations tend...--Julie
Mason Rich people need FHA loans, too
So let me get this straight, the government
created the housing market crash by insuring a lot of really expensive,
little-to-no money down mortgages for people that couldn't...--Mark
Hemingway ACORN got sub-grants from DOJ <snip>
==============
The Alliance for Code Excellence | CodeOffsets.com
http://codeoffsets.com/
Introducing the Bad Code Offset
Mike
===============
In answer to your question
Hello Jerry,
You asked this: "Sad and pathetic, true, but will
Political Correctness overshadow the truth?"
The specific PURPOSE of 'Political Correctness' is to
overshadow the truth.
Therefore, the short answer: In this specific case, as
always: Yes!
Bob Ludwick
==
Right now, we are approaching the point, especially in
the political arena, but creeping into science, where the rational is
becoming not only unacceptable but criminal. Hate speech laws and threats to
prosecute 'Global Warming Deniers' provide examples. Of course, in the long
run, you are correct: those who compel irrational behavior through force
cannot succeed indefinitely (see the Soviet Union, for example), but for
those of us nearing the end of our lives, the triumph of Mother Nature (and
she WILL, as always, triumph) may come a little late.
On another note, the vote to debate the 'Health Care'
bill just passed, with the help of a $100M slush fund made available to the
good senator from Louisiana. And who knows how much to other senators. I
notice that the Republicans are in an imaginary snit about details such as
whether abortion should be funded under the bill, whether it is fair for
illegal aliens to escape prosecution for failure to purchase insurance, and
a few similar nits, but I don't hear ANYONE (other than you and I and about
11 other equally powerful voices) questioning just how the federal
government obtained the power to (citing one example) fine you and me and/or
throw us in jail if we choose not to buy a government-anointed health
insurance policy. Nor do I understand how my health records have suddenly
become public documents, making me, and my doctor, subject to prosecution if
we attempt to conceal them from the government.
But, there is a fair number of other activities
engaged in by the federal government whose connection to the the authority
granted to it by the Constitution appears a bit nebulous to me, since I am
not a 'constitutional scholar' like our Great Leader.
Bob Ludwick
=================
The Reality of a Times Bestseller.
<http://www.genreality.net/the-reality-of-a-times-bestseller>
---- Roland Dobbins
==
'A novel on the New York Times bestseller list does
not bring financial security.'
<http://www.straightgoods.ca/
2009/ViewBrief.cfm?Ref=187&Cookies=yes>
Roland
============
On the health care debate
'Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the
Louisiana Purchase.'
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/
AR2009112102272.html>
--- Roland Dobbins
==============
'But the real new Great Game is being played in the
swamps of the Niger Delta, on the borders of Colombia-Venezuela, in the
metal mines of the DRC and now in the rare earth mines of the world.'
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/
paulmason/2009/11/rare_earth_
the_new_great_game.html>
-- Roland Dobbins
The US may not be able to avoid playing that game.
===========
The fate of charity hospitals
'Officials at Grady, which will provide more than $300
million in uncompensated care this year, estimate that as many as a fifth of
its uninsured patients are illegal immigrants.'
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/
health/policy/21grady.html?&pagewanted=all>
-- Roland Dobbins
Of course this is not part of the health care
debate.
================
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Sunday
The
current page will always have the name currentmail.html and may be
bookmarked. For
previous weeks, go to the MAIL HOME PAGE.
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.
- Day-by-day...
- Monday -- Tuesday -- Wednesday
-- Thursday -- Friday -- Saturday
-- Sunday
-
-
Search engine:
or the freefind search
Boiler Plate:
If you want to PAY FOR THIS
PLACE I keep the latest information
HERE.
MY
THANKS to all of you who sent money. Some of you went to a lot of
trouble to send money from overseas. Thank you! There are also some new payment methods. I am preparing a special (electronic)
mailing to all those who paid: there will be a couple of these. I have
thought about a subscriber section of the page. LET ME KNOW your thoughts.
.
If you subscribed:
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request.
If you didn't and haven't, why not?
If this seems a lot about paying think of it as the Subscription Drive
Nag. You'll see more.
Patron Subscription:
Search: type in string
and press return.
For platinum subscription:
For a PDF copy of A Step Farther Out:
= = = = = = = = = =
For a Regular Subscription click here:
= = = = = = = =
Strategy of Technology in pdf format:
To order the nose pump I recommend, click on the banner
below:
Entire Site Copyright, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by Jerry
E. Pournelle. All rights reserved. |
