| Sunday, May
30, 2010
Subject: Is there really plenty of
oil in easy reach?
Jerry,
With regard to the gulf oil spill, you recently said:
"My observation is that there's no need for us to have
wells at 5,000 foot depths. There is plenty of off shore oil at a few
hundred feet, and for that matter oil fields on land. We ought to be
exploiting those, not going out to the vasty deep."
I'm curious about your sources for this information.
Much of what I read these days about the oil business, and the impending
arrival of peak oil, suggests that most of the large, easily exploited
fields have already been identified and developed, and that oil companies
are now forced to look in more dangerous and difficult places
(environmentally or politically challenging) because that is where the
greatest promise lies for major new discoveries.
Obviously, there are some shallow water areas off the
US coast that have not been exploited because of environmental restrictions,
and those could make a tidy sum for someone if development were to be
allowed. But do any of those areas have oil fields that are substantial
enough to make a significant dent in US oil imports?
Interest in deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
seems to stem from the potential for exploiting a very large oil field:
"Another major exploration breakthrough has arrived in
the shape of Chevron’s successful production test of the Jack 2 oil well in
the Gulf of Mexico. The well test is the first time that oil has been
successfully extracted from the ancient tertiary trend in the deepest waters
of the Gulf and has bolstered hopes that companies will soon be able to tap
the giant reserves that lie there."
"It is estimated that the deepwater area of the Gulf
of Mexico could yield between three billion and 15 billion barrels of oil,
making it potentially the biggest US discovery since that of Prudhoe Bay in
Alaska nearly 40 years ago. If production comes in at the upper end of that
estimate it will boost US reserves by 50 percent. The Gulf has long been
seen as an area with serious promise, but the difficulty of accessing the
reserves in such deep water has been a major stumbling block."
(http://www.ngoilgas.com/article/Hard-to-reach/)
CP, Connecticut
Of course oil is hard to reach, If it were not it
would be cheaper and people wouldn't get right out of finding it.
It has been my experience that oil is where you
find it, and you find it in places that you look. Few look where you are
not allowed to drill. I understand that there are large fields at bery
great depths, but I also know that at least in 1969 there were a number of
off-shore wells planned in California, all fairly close to shore; the
Santa Barbara oil spill stopped thos. That wasn't an economic decision.
I'm no oil expert, but I do know there are plenty
of outfits willing to drill and exploit wells in areas other than way the
hell off shore in very deep water. Deep water wells are a lot more
expensive than those closer to shore.
Of course there is interest in very deep wells.
If I were in charge I would require those developing those wells to have
clear contingency plans for recovering from spills and torrents and
disasters, and also charge a separation tax to be spent on developing
resources -- possibly a branch of the Coast Guard in the case of federally
owned sites, possible a state disaster service in the case of state owned
facilities. If the taxes were too high and caused the companies to come
closer to shore, so be it. My point in 1969 when I went through this with
Reagan was that during a disaster is not the time to learn how to deal
with the disaster if there is any possibility of preparing in advance; and
a major oil spill is inevitable. I said this in 1967.
I am not the proper person to design details,
such as how much ought to be allocated to create a public service disaster
service and how large that ought to be compared to organized civil defense
services (when I first made this proposal it was in a Civil Defense
context, at a time when we had working Civil Defense organizations0. I can
leave that to others. I note, though, that forty years after this was
discussed and I had done my briefings we still don't know about the safety
of many chemical detergents, we didn't have any civil defense organization
in the Gulf, we didn't have any large well capping equipment, and no one
really knew what the hell to do when something very predictable happened.
If we don't know how to deal with deep water oil
gushers, we probably ought not be drilling in very deep water.
===========
Researcher Infects Himself With Computer Virus -
Wired Campus - The Chronicle of Higher Education
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Researcher-Infects-Himself/24352/
To quote the late Phil Castora, what can I say after I
say what can I say?
Best,
Francis Hamit
============
Subject: Finance.
Jerry,
In addition to Bob Holmes's suggestion for injecting a
little honesty into the rating agencies I suggest that credit default swaps;
ie. bets that a company or country will become bankrupt are limited by using
the insurable interest rules. Crudely these prevent another insuring your
house against, say, fire. It would be too tempting otherwise. If they hold a
mortgage, of course, they then have an insurable interest. Short selling of
shares should be limited to actual shareholders and the shares they hold.
One of the evils of letting the nice man at the broker's office do all the
tedious paperwork for you is that he may be renting out your shares and if
the broker goes bankrupt you may have difficulty in getting them back from
all the other people who also think they own them. At least some exchange
traded bullion funds are also flawed. The major institution whose terms and
conditions that I studied took no responsibility if your bullion turned out
to be cast iron with a coat of gold paint, (yes it happened 200 tons of it),
and they reserved the right to store it in their friends garden shed at your
risk. If this were not enough they also reserved the right to use your money
to back a racehorse that they fancied. Of course the terms were more
mellifluous than this but you would be hard put to sue if that is what
happened and the horse lost or the shed was burgled. Another racket is the
unallocated bullion holding. This is where you own a claim on the general
hoard as opposed to specific bars. I had to be downright nasty to a
government owned bank when I converted an unallocated bullion holding to an
allocated holding of specific bars. The general hoard simply did not exist.
This was not mentioned when I paid for my non existent investment. Finally,
the investment manager who defended his decision not to do due diligence
because it would have involved reading 750,000 documents should be publicly
executed. It is very easy to do due diligence when the documents are
delivered in a large lorry. You send the driver away. Immediately. You do
not make the investment.
Here endeth the rant,
John Edwards
============
The Single Reason
There is but one reason for the vast majority of
content in both View and Mail: greed.
Illegal immigration could be solved in a matter of
months; stop all hiring of illegal immigrants in any and all occupational
categories. They come here for opportunity, period. Remove all opportunity
and the flow of illegal immigrants would reverse. They wouldn't have to be
deported; they would find their own way home. There would be long lines on
this side of the border of folks waiting to get back on the south side.
But the greed of the contractor, etc. to get the job
done a few bucks cheaper per worker puts money in the contractor's pocket.
It is just that simple. Who is stealing jobs from American workers? It's
American employers, illegally hiring illegal workers to line the
contractor's (and sub-contractor's) pockets instead of putting money in the
pockets of American workers.
If there were no work, no opportunity for illegal
immigrants whatsoever, there would be no illegal immigrant problem. Put the
blame where it belongs, on the backs of the greedy contractors and
sub-contractors. I'm willing to bet that a great many of the same people who
are howling about illegal immigration have not checked the papers of their
own gardeners, roofers, plumbers helpers, cable layers, trash collectors and
so on and so forth. Why wait for the INS? Take away the jobs. Pay only for
American labor.
BP (and everyone else) uses a different BOP in
European waters than they use in American waters. I dare say that if they
used the European version in American waters, there would be no oil spill in
the Gulf. There's plenty of greed there to spread throughout the political
environment that pre-existed the Obama administration. I've read that the
platform management wanted to impress the suits coming for the tour; again,
simple greed. (Greed isn't always about cash, it's also about pecking order
and choice assignments).
As far as the financial sector, greed is the single
driving force.
Bruce
One always assumes greed. The logical trend of
unrestrained capitalism is to the sale of human flesh in the market place.
One always assumes ambition. One always assumes the Iron
Law.
As to "stop all hiring of illegal immigrants in
any and all occupational categories" I fear that's a little like Will
Rogers' solution to the submarine problem: Boil the Atlantic Ocean.
They're sure to surface and then we can sink them." But yes, better
enforcement of Social Security and other such would certainly help.
So would a big fence. We don't seem to be doing
that.
=================
X-51 ordinary-fuel scramjet to fly on Tuesday
The Register® <http://www.theregister.co.uk/>
Original URL:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/21/x_51_scramjet_test_confirmed/
X-51 ordinary-fuel scramjet to fly on Tuesday
'This will be as big as going from props to jets'
By Lewis Page <http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?
story_url=/2010/05/21/x_51_scramjet_test_confirmed/>
Posted in Space <http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/space/>
, 21st May 2010 15:04 GMT
The X-51A "Waverider" scramjet will fly at last next
Tuesday, it has been announced. It had been expected that the radical engine
- capable of Mach 6 velocities while running on fairly ordinary jet fuel -
would fly last December, but budgetary and scheduling difficulties have
delayed the project.
The X-51A is being run by the Air Force Research
Laboratory and built by Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. It will be
dropped from a modified B-52 bomber operated by NASA next week, and a
booster rocket will accelerate it to ignition speed (ramjets can't even fire
up until they're going fast enough to cram suitable amounts of air into
their front ends).
Unlike well-understood ordinary ramjets, which slow
the air passing through them to subsonic speeds, the X-51 is intended to
maintain combustion in a supersonic internal airflow - hence the name
scramjet, for supersonic combustion ramjet - a feat often likened to
"striking a match in a hurricane".
Having ignited, its designers hope that the Waverider
will accelerate further to speeds of Mach 6 and fly for as long as five
minutes before making its final dive into the Pacific. There are no plans to
retrieve the aircraft: all data from the test will be gathered remotely.
"In those 300 seconds, we hope to learn more about
hypersonic flight with a practical scramjet engine than all previous flight
tests combined," says Charlie Brink, X-51 honcho at the Air Force Lab.
The previous longest scramjet flight, by NASA's X-43
in 2004, lasted only ten seconds. The X-43, too, burned hydrogen, which is
not a good feature in aircraft as it requires enormous tanks for storage.
Hydrogen scramjets offer higher speeds (Mach 10 has been achieved) but the
X-51's ability to run on ordinary hydrocarbons has long been sought.
Previous attempts along these lines haven't gone well <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/07/hyfly_scramjet_dcr_darpa_test_failure/>
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/07/hyfly_scramjet_dcr_darpa_test_failure/),
but the X-51 represents a new approach.
Brink said in a statement released yesterday that
delays to the project had resulted from budgetary and scheduling problems -
in particular the difficulty of getting a time slot on the Pacific range and
a booking of NASA's B-52. Rather than an initial shot last December followed
by three more this year, there will now be only one test before the new
fiscal year.
"This is an experimental X-plane and it's a
complicated test," says Brink. "We knew the original schedule was aggressive
and we would need to be flexible," said Brink. "It's also expensive to keep
a staff of engineers and support staff at the ready and then not be able to
fly when supporting assets aren’t available. So we elected to make only one
hypersonic try this spring and then pause for a few months to conserve
funding."
If successful, the X-51 is expected to lead in the
short term to new missiles able to strike faraway targets quickly and hit so
fast as to be extremely difficult to defend against.
In the longer run, scramjet tech could be a key factor
in access to orbit via reusable runway-takeoff spaceplanes. Rockets struggle
to achieve this because they must carry oxidiser as well as fuel, reducing
what they can lift, but a spaceplane which could burn air for part of its
ascent would have improved performance.
Brink has said before that the X-51 project could
allow for tests to see what the minimum ignition speed of the scramjet might
be.
“The lower it can go, the lower the stress on a
turbine,” he said <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/05/x_51_tests_for_december/>
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/05/x_51_tests_for_december/) last
year, alluding to the possibility of an ordinary jet being used to shove the
scramjet up to ignition speed - so opening the door to craft which could
take off from a runway standing start without rocket boost. Ordinary
turbojets are limited to around Mach 2.5 in normal use, though they can beat
Mach 3 if the user doesn't mind replacing them afterwards.
"If the test flight meets even a subset of our
expectations, the leap in engine technology will be the equivalent to the
post-World War II leap from propellers to jet engines. It will be a historic
event," enthused Boeing veep Alex Lopez.
And it flew. For 200 seconds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100527130438.htm
==============
Subject: Google's WiFi snoop -
who knew and who didn't?
Google says they ‘only’ collected 600GB of information
via wireless. Well .. let’s see, if we assume 100 bytes of information can
hold a person’s name, address, ID (SSN in the US), bank account number and
password…. Then we divide 600 GB by 100 … we get 6 Billion individuals.
Since there are only 6.8 billion people in the world, their database could
have that much info in it.
Now, I’m not claiming Google collected the information
I mentioned, or that they did it around the entire world…it’s the point that
‘only’ 600GB of information has the potential to be a lot of damaging info
for a lot of people.
Original URL:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/google_street_view_wifi_analysis/
Google's WiFi snoop - who knew and who
didn't?
The meaning of 'mistake'
By Cade Metz in San Francisco <http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/
?story_url=/2010/05/18/google_street_view_wifi_analysis/>
Posted in ID <http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/identity/>
, 18th May 2010 00:24 GMT
How do you mistakenly spend three years
collecting personal data from the world's open WiFi networks? We're not
quite sure. We can only hope that when Google asks an outsider to
scrutinize the WiFi-snooping habits of its Street View cars, the results
are released to the public.
Google spent three years collecting personal
data <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/
google_street_view_cars_were_collecting_
payload_data_from_wifi_networks/> from the world's open WiFi
networks, its fleet of Street View cars nabbing wireless network traffic
as they sped across the globe snapping all those digital photos, and yes,
the company says it did so "mistakenly." When reading Google's blog post <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html>
on the matter, you're led to believe that it was all just an accident -
that even those leading the project didn't quite realize what their own
software was gathering.<snip>
=============
The 5000 Year Leap; Great Read
Dear American Friend,
This alert has less to do with your political
persuasion and much more to do with how you view your country in its
relationship with the World body. It has been said that the United States of
America represents the greatest experiment in government ever attempted in
modern times. Elements of our forefather's ideas in establishing a
constitution had been tried in ancient times. The actual building of our
constitution, circa 1784, was the result of much debate among a group of
leaders that probably was drawn together by an act of God. How else could
they have developed the most important document the World has ever seen that
stands at the head of the class in terms of success, 226 years later. ( You
should come to your own conclusion on this claim.)
The book I am recommending is titled; The 5000 Year
Leap. The title is a reference to 5000 years of attempts to build a just and
free society that would enable mankind to live in peace. Written by
Professor W. Cleon Skousen, ISBN 10; 0-88080-148-1, 2006 NATIONAL CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, this book is an easy read with well documented
references for all of its statistical data. It really deserves to be a
required study in every American high school history class. It is totally
relative to a 2010 governance.
This 337 page treatise can be purchased through Amazon
for around $10.00 used or at Barnes and Noble or Borders for $19.95. It will
be the most important book you will read this year outside of the Holy
Bible, if you are a regular reader of that "other" very special book. If you
do not read this book, just because I have suggested it, read it because you
will thank me vigorously when you have completed it. You will also join a
growing number of fans who have discovered the book and attempt to get
serious Americans to delve into this part of the history of our wonderful
country. I'm sorry, I am sure I have not done the book justice with this
entreaty. That's OK, just bite the bullet, get it and read it ! If I am
wrong, I will rebate your cost promptly.
Like me, you will probably wonder why this information
was not given to us somewhere along the line, while we were being educated.
What was wrong with those folks who were responsible for our history
curriculum? Please take my word for it, you will be pleased with the time
spent! You will also formulate some answers for those poor souls that aspire
to deviate from the marvelous document that was created to guide America to
a truly free society for all its coming generations. The only really free
Nation in the world.
Please let me know of your reaction, should you be
fortunate enough to obtain and follow my suggestion.
Thank You,
Jack H. Anderson
============
Re: 'Rear-end collisions more than doubled and
accidents increased overall in the first 70 days of red-light cameras in
West Palm Beach compared to the same period of 2009, traffic records
reviewed by The Palm Beach Post show.'
But what about fatal accidents from red-light running
motorists?
As a motorcyclist (who sometimes drives a compact
car), I am more concerned with red-light running SUVs.
============
Second Danish drug-maker quits Greece over price cut
A second Danish pharmaceutical firm has withdrawn its
products from Greece as fallout from the government’s decision to lower the
price of medicines continues.
By James Hall Published: 6:43PM BST 30 May 2010
The heavily indebted Greek government has cut the
prices of medicines by 25pc. However, Leo Pharma has suspended the sale of
two of its drugs because it claims that the price reductions will lead to
job losses in Europe.
Kristian Hart Hansen, a senior director of the
company, said the 25pc price reduction would encourage similar moves in
other countries with large debt problems such as Ireland and Italy,
according to the BBC.
Last week another Danish company, Novo Nordisk,
withdrew sales of one of its products from Greece for the same reason.
Leo Pharma’s drugs in question are thought to be an
anti blood-clotting agent and a remedy for psoriasis.
Leo Pharma claims it is owed millions of euros in
unpaid bills by Greece.
However, Greek government officials are
counter-claiming that drugs in Greece are too expensive.
According to the BBC, Stefanos Combinos, the director
general of Greece’s economy ministry, said that Greece was one of the three
most expensive countries in Europe for medicines. He also said that
pharmaceutical companies had an obligation to accept price reductions.
Greece is facing financial crisis. At the start of
this month, eurozone members and the IMF agreed a €110bn (£95bn) three-year
bail-out package to rescue the country’s economy.
In return for the loans, Greece has started to make
wide-ranging, deep and painful austerity cuts. Mr Combinos told the BBC that
Greece had been under pressure from the IMF to make severe cuts and
anticipated that a compromise on a price reduction could be reached soon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/
pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/7786800/
Second-Danish-drug-maker-quits-
Greece-over-price-cut.html
Watching the Euro unravel... Swedes still
have kroner and the Brits have the pound...
=============
Could This Be Shown...
...in today's K-12 classrooms? Would it be understood
there?
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/
2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
Charles Brumbelow
============
Nuke fans, climate agnostics gain ground
Poll shows treehuggers dwindling
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment <http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/environment/>
, 24th May 2010 10:48 GMT
Climate agnostics now outnumber true believers who
believe radical action is required for the first time, according to a YouGov
poll.
The number of people who acknowledge scientific
opinions differ has risen from 25 to 33 per cent, while the number who
believe global warming is "a serious and urgent problem and radical steps
must be taken NOW to prevent terrible damage being done to the planet" has
fallen 10 per cent to 28 per cent over a year. The number of respondents who
declare that they're "very interested" in global warming has fallen from 31
per cent in 2007 to 18 per cent. <snip>
============
The Teachers' Unions' Last Stand
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23
/magazine/23Race-t.html?src=me&ref=general
You might possibly be interested in this New York
Times Magazine article "The Teachers' Unions' Last Stand." The title
oversells the viewpoint of the article (besides, this is the New York Times,
are they really going to cross the teachers' unions?)
--Mike
============
Subject: Baen Free Library
Dear Jerry,
A friend sent me this link today:
http://www.baen.com/library/
Since I hadn't seen anything about this on your site
for that past couple of months (I checked) I thought I'd let you know. From
the site:
"Baen Books is now making available — for free — a
number of its titles in electronic format. We're calling it the Baen Free
Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online — no conditions, no
strings attached. (Later we may ask for an extremely simple, name & email
only, registration. ) Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one
of several formats. Again, with no conditions or strings attached."
Regards,
Steve Erbach Neenah, WI
http://www.TheTownCrank.com
"I object and take exception to everyone saying that
Obama and Congress are spending money like a drunken sailor. As a former
drunken sailor, I quit when I ran out of money." - Bruce L. Hargraves, USN
Retired
It's worth reminding readers about Baen's free
library from time to time
=================
re: carriers & submarines
(and missiles, too)
Yes, missiles and torpedoes can sink carriers. This
isn't new: during WWII the carriers Ark Royal, Courageous, Eagle, Yorktown,
Wasp, Shokaku, Chuyo, Shinano, Taiho, Taiyo, Unryu and Unyo - and I may have
missed a few - were all sunk by submarines. Mines can do that too, for that
matter. The fact is, no ship is unsinkable.
The real question is, are carriers relevant? can their
job be done more efficiently by some other kind of ship or even entirely
different platforms?
Carriers rendered battlships obsolete because they
could detect and sink other ships (including battleships) at far greater
range.
To sink a ship you must a) detect it, b) get a firing
solution and c) bring weapons into range and fire them.
The range at which you can do all of these is very
important, much more than for land warfare. On land, range is good, but at
some point you have to put sixteen-year-olds with guns on the ground you
want to control. At sea, you only need to be able to sink ships from
hundreds of miles away.
Missiles have range, but they're useless without a
firing solution.
To get a firing solution, you usually need to have
some kind of platform with a permanent line of sight to the target. Sonars
can do that too, but they're quite unreliable at anything but very short
range - a few dozen nm.
This means that unless you know the ennemy has to pass
through a restricted area, submarines need external help to get to a target.
And radar surveillance aircraft are the most efficient
way to detect and track ships, because their detection range is about
100-200 nm - compared to about 50nm for ship-based radars. Which is still
limited when you consider the size of oceans: again, that's where carriers
are really useful and quite irreplaceable.
Drones are no paradigm-shifters for that matter,
because while it's true that any ship can conceivably launch a drone, they
can't recover them without a flight deck.
So until someone invents a more efficient way than
aircraft to provide firing solutions, carriers are here to stay.
Jean-Louis Beaufils
==
Subj: On the Obsolescence ... or not ... of Carrier
Battle Groups
I respectfully suggest that it is impossible to
understand the question -- much less even begin thinking usefully about what
the answer might be -- without understanding the history-based analysis in
_FLEET TACTICS AND COASTAL COMBAT, 2ND EDITION_, by Captain Wayne P. Hughes
Jr. (US Navy, retired).
http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?department_id=45&item_id=553
Rod Montgomery==monty@starfief.com
Certainly required reading for anyone making such
decisions. Of course most of those who are will have read it.
=============
Re: natural-language programming
"Why should we have to spend years learning how to
tell the computer to do something?"
Because the people who run the CS departments at
colleges like their teaching jobs and want to keep them ;)
-- Mike T. Powers
=============w
f
g
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. |
