Monday, May 21, 2007
You call *that* an erection?
People who love buildings and other objects, right here, courtesy of Boing-Boing
The world's lamest expression
I propose "You always have to have the last word!" Has anyone ever said that without intending to have the last word themselves?
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Nuclear plant trip via Internet?
Alright, I've been away from the nuclear biz for a few years now, but coverage of an event at TVA's Browns Ferry (BFNP) site sounds misleading to me. "Data storm" blamed for shutdown.
First, some background. Look here for information on boiling water reactors (BWR) in general. The players in this event were the reactor recirculation pumps (which tripped) and the condensate demineralizers ("polishers"). The net effect was as if kidney failure caused a seizure, which the doctors in the control room dealt with via manual scram (intentional shutdown of the reactor) from the control room.
Now, the doctors. Historically anyone who operates a reactor or directly supervises them needs a pretty exclusive credential as a "reactor operator" (RO) or "senior reactor operator" (SRO) per requirements from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, occasionally US-NRC). They receive this credential after intensive training on their plants both with books and with team drills using a control room that is a replica of their facility right down to the colors and shapes of the switches, buttons and displays. They can lose it, and of course the jobs that require it, by failing to act as required by training and procedure.
One tenet of reactor management is that shutdowns like this are dissected in detail, particularly automatic ones. For the latter you can bet that the operators on shift at the time will be asked why they didn't avoid the situation if possible, or else shut down the reactor themselves before the automatic logic took over. An unsatisfactory answer will be received as if a doctor at a malpractice trial had said "no, I didn't use anaesthetic because I figured the patient would pass out anyway from the pain".
Now let's talk about the reactor recirculation (RR) pumps. They're not found in pressurized water reactors (PWR), but they're familiar to fossil plant operators. The idea is to increase the coolant flow through the reactor, because that permits it to generate more power (think turbochargers).
There's always some flow under power operation, because steam is flowing out and feedwater is flowing in to maintain a constant level of coolant in the reactor well above the fuel. But if water is recirculated, you can have more flow through the core than what feedwater alone would provide, and this increases power output. And that power varies in proportion to the RR pump speed, so they have variable frequency drives to control their motors (at BFNP, anyway - more modern BWRs control recirc flow in other ways).
When you shut down a plant, the idea is to minimize its power production. Accordingly the RR pumps are shut down early in the process in the course of a planned shutdown of a BWR, and having the RR pumps unavailable for whatever reason (short of large leaks) does not affect reactor safety.
Now, the condensate polishers. They're typically located far from their reactor in the basement of the building which houses the turbine. They clean the reactor coolant, which in a BWR is demineralized water. By the time the water reaches a BWR's condensate polishers it has been through the condensate and feedwater systems, the reactor, the turbine, and the condenser, and along the way it has picked up contaminants from corrosion products and others. This means that you don't hang around the condensate polishers - they're "hot" radiologically.
They have no safety function. David Copperfield could make them all disappear and the plant could be shut down safely. You won't operate the plant that way for long, but nuclear safety regulations are not concerned with that - that's the owner's problem.
Also like kidneys, you have more CPs than you need. In normal operation you'll have as many running as it takes to support full power operation, and the others will either be out of service or being regenerated.
If CPs are the kidneys, the radwaste system is the bladder. CPs that I am familiar with contain tiny beads of special polymeric resins which preferentially absorb various ions, and they don't last forever - they're either regenerated or replaced at intervals. The analogy is left as an exercise.
Either process involves valve manipulations and other activities near the CPs. Automation of this saves radiation exposure to operators and forces use of the proper procedures. And nowadays the cool kids are using programmable logic controllers (PLC) to control such logic - what valve opens when, and for how long, in response to what measurement, etc.
PLCs are like highly proprietary computers with a very narrow focus and specialized I/O devices. They're much more reliable than PCs (thank God for that), and, being proprietary, they need not make compromises in the name of compatibility with other manufacturers. They can be programmed and can communicate like computers in various network topographies. They can drive or be driven by analog signals, switch and relay contacts or by signals sent over their network. They're compact and can be replaced by yanking cards out of a rack. And as a consequence they offer entirely new ways to fail.
I don't know the details of the configuration at BFNP, but it sounds fair to assume that the PLCs that control the CPs somehow share an information network with the reactor recirculation pumps. Otherwise how could the problem with the CPs impact the RR pumps?
Well, if so this interconnection is not quite as crazy as it may sound. For one, all of the systems in the power generation system must work in concert. Once a BWR is generating power, you manipulate control rods to a certain state as dictated by the nuclear engineering staff to optimize fuel consumption. Then you pretty much leave them there, and control power via the speed of the reactor recirc pumps. More power means more flow through the CPs, and they only tolerate so much flow, so whether automated or not the CP status is considered in the operation of the RR pumps.
I understand that BFNP was modified recently, which is probably when the PLCs were put in. These devices were in their infancy at the time these plants were originally designed and built, and BWR units built later still had traditional 4-20mA analog controllers and relay ladder logic for most systems. When the new design was proposed, I'm guessing that some old operators and engineers were saying "WTF? Nothing happens so fast with CPs that we can't deal with it manually and we don't need any strange new control systems with their new failure modes. This isn't some stealth bomber that simply can't be flown without computerized controls and which spends most of its time shut down anyway - what is this crap doing here?" At which time they found that they were troglodytes and were overruled.
But the bottom line is that nothing happened that impacted the public beyond reading about it in the paper. It cost TVA a bundle because shutdowns always do, planned or otherwise, so you can bet that they're looking really hard at preventing recurrences if only for the most venal capitalistic reasons. There'd better be some engineers and instrument techs burning serious midnight oil at the company that provided the PLCs and on the staff at BFNP. And you don't have to be a baseball fan to know that the most effective way to keep your errors down is to have fewer chances - nobody wants this to recur.
So why did we hear of a "data storm"? I don't like that formulation because it invites speculation that somehow the Internet was involved, and in turn, that someone from outside the plant could manipulate the plant to its detriment.
Yeah, fat chance. If I thought that were happening I'd throw a fit myself. No RO or SRO I ever met would stand for that - they're responsible for the plant, they have to know what's going on, and they'd raise Cain if anything that mattered could bypass them. And I can't imagine the NRC liking it.
The TVA spokesperson confirms the separation here:
Original link from Instapundit.
UPDATE: What's this, traffic? It must be a link back from Instapundit. Thanks, Glenn! Incidentally, I made some minor changes above to make it resemble English a bit more closely. I don't have to be literate, I'm an engineer!
First, some background. Look here for information on boiling water reactors (BWR) in general. The players in this event were the reactor recirculation pumps (which tripped) and the condensate demineralizers ("polishers"). The net effect was as if kidney failure caused a seizure, which the doctors in the control room dealt with via manual scram (intentional shutdown of the reactor) from the control room.
Now, the doctors. Historically anyone who operates a reactor or directly supervises them needs a pretty exclusive credential as a "reactor operator" (RO) or "senior reactor operator" (SRO) per requirements from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, occasionally US-NRC). They receive this credential after intensive training on their plants both with books and with team drills using a control room that is a replica of their facility right down to the colors and shapes of the switches, buttons and displays. They can lose it, and of course the jobs that require it, by failing to act as required by training and procedure.
One tenet of reactor management is that shutdowns like this are dissected in detail, particularly automatic ones. For the latter you can bet that the operators on shift at the time will be asked why they didn't avoid the situation if possible, or else shut down the reactor themselves before the automatic logic took over. An unsatisfactory answer will be received as if a doctor at a malpractice trial had said "no, I didn't use anaesthetic because I figured the patient would pass out anyway from the pain".
Now let's talk about the reactor recirculation (RR) pumps. They're not found in pressurized water reactors (PWR), but they're familiar to fossil plant operators. The idea is to increase the coolant flow through the reactor, because that permits it to generate more power (think turbochargers).
There's always some flow under power operation, because steam is flowing out and feedwater is flowing in to maintain a constant level of coolant in the reactor well above the fuel. But if water is recirculated, you can have more flow through the core than what feedwater alone would provide, and this increases power output. And that power varies in proportion to the RR pump speed, so they have variable frequency drives to control their motors (at BFNP, anyway - more modern BWRs control recirc flow in other ways).
When you shut down a plant, the idea is to minimize its power production. Accordingly the RR pumps are shut down early in the process in the course of a planned shutdown of a BWR, and having the RR pumps unavailable for whatever reason (short of large leaks) does not affect reactor safety.
Now, the condensate polishers. They're typically located far from their reactor in the basement of the building which houses the turbine. They clean the reactor coolant, which in a BWR is demineralized water. By the time the water reaches a BWR's condensate polishers it has been through the condensate and feedwater systems, the reactor, the turbine, and the condenser, and along the way it has picked up contaminants from corrosion products and others. This means that you don't hang around the condensate polishers - they're "hot" radiologically.
They have no safety function. David Copperfield could make them all disappear and the plant could be shut down safely. You won't operate the plant that way for long, but nuclear safety regulations are not concerned with that - that's the owner's problem.
Also like kidneys, you have more CPs than you need. In normal operation you'll have as many running as it takes to support full power operation, and the others will either be out of service or being regenerated.
If CPs are the kidneys, the radwaste system is the bladder. CPs that I am familiar with contain tiny beads of special polymeric resins which preferentially absorb various ions, and they don't last forever - they're either regenerated or replaced at intervals. The analogy is left as an exercise.
Either process involves valve manipulations and other activities near the CPs. Automation of this saves radiation exposure to operators and forces use of the proper procedures. And nowadays the cool kids are using programmable logic controllers (PLC) to control such logic - what valve opens when, and for how long, in response to what measurement, etc.
PLCs are like highly proprietary computers with a very narrow focus and specialized I/O devices. They're much more reliable than PCs (thank God for that), and, being proprietary, they need not make compromises in the name of compatibility with other manufacturers. They can be programmed and can communicate like computers in various network topographies. They can drive or be driven by analog signals, switch and relay contacts or by signals sent over their network. They're compact and can be replaced by yanking cards out of a rack. And as a consequence they offer entirely new ways to fail.
I don't know the details of the configuration at BFNP, but it sounds fair to assume that the PLCs that control the CPs somehow share an information network with the reactor recirculation pumps. Otherwise how could the problem with the CPs impact the RR pumps?
Well, if so this interconnection is not quite as crazy as it may sound. For one, all of the systems in the power generation system must work in concert. Once a BWR is generating power, you manipulate control rods to a certain state as dictated by the nuclear engineering staff to optimize fuel consumption. Then you pretty much leave them there, and control power via the speed of the reactor recirc pumps. More power means more flow through the CPs, and they only tolerate so much flow, so whether automated or not the CP status is considered in the operation of the RR pumps.
I understand that BFNP was modified recently, which is probably when the PLCs were put in. These devices were in their infancy at the time these plants were originally designed and built, and BWR units built later still had traditional 4-20mA analog controllers and relay ladder logic for most systems. When the new design was proposed, I'm guessing that some old operators and engineers were saying "WTF? Nothing happens so fast with CPs that we can't deal with it manually and we don't need any strange new control systems with their new failure modes. This isn't some stealth bomber that simply can't be flown without computerized controls and which spends most of its time shut down anyway - what is this crap doing here?" At which time they found that they were troglodytes and were overruled.
But the bottom line is that nothing happened that impacted the public beyond reading about it in the paper. It cost TVA a bundle because shutdowns always do, planned or otherwise, so you can bet that they're looking really hard at preventing recurrences if only for the most venal capitalistic reasons. There'd better be some engineers and instrument techs burning serious midnight oil at the company that provided the PLCs and on the staff at BFNP. And you don't have to be a baseball fan to know that the most effective way to keep your errors down is to have fewer chances - nobody wants this to recur.
So why did we hear of a "data storm"? I don't like that formulation because it invites speculation that somehow the Internet was involved, and in turn, that someone from outside the plant could manipulate the plant to its detriment.
Yeah, fat chance. If I thought that were happening I'd throw a fit myself. No RO or SRO I ever met would stand for that - they're responsible for the plant, they have to know what's going on, and they'd raise Cain if anything that mattered could bypass them. And I can't imagine the NRC liking it.
The TVA spokesperson confirms the separation here:
"The integrated control system (ICS) network is not connected to the network outside the plant, but it is connected to a very large number of controllers and devices in the plant," Johnson said. "You can end up with a lot of information, and it appears to be more than it could handle."
That's not to say that no computers are ever attached to such control systems. Some are used to monitor and log various plant statuses to help in diagnosing problems and analyzing trips, and they are invaluable for this. But in my experience they are connected through isolators such that they could fail completely, short out, etc, without harming the original circuits. They don't control anything related to power production, and no safety related plant functionality is lost if such systems are unavailable. Original link from Instapundit.
UPDATE: What's this, traffic? It must be a link back from Instapundit. Thanks, Glenn! Incidentally, I made some minor changes above to make it resemble English a bit more closely. I don't have to be literate, I'm an engineer!
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Would they have asked Bill Clinton this?
Heavens, a Mormon is running for President! Lock up your daughters!
Although I haven't picked anyone else either, I'm not a Mitt Romney backer. And I've never lived among significant groups of Mormons. But the ones I have known have been good people, and I know BS when I hear it.
By now everyone has heard of Al Sharpton's latest asininity, about Mormons, but the corker has to be the SOB who asked Romney if he had slept with his wife before they got married.
Ah yes, nothing could be more significant in a politician than whether they're HYPOCRITES! And why not? It plays into the MSM's biases - non-lefties have higher standards, so they're more likely to fall short of them. Far better to elect the kinds of whorehopping degenerates you're likely to find as, say, senators from Massachusetts.
I'd like to flip this logic on its head. Let's ask the candidates "Are you a hypocrite? And if not, doesn't that mean that you have no meaningful standards at all for your conduct?"
As for Romney, what should he have said? Where are David Letterman's Top Ten List writers? I'm no Scrappleface, and I'm sure I won't come up with 10, but here goes:
"Why don't you save that question for the debates?"
"It depends on what the meaning of 'have sex' is"
"I was before it before I was against it"
"Yes, but I'm not a Democrat - I wouldn't pull out until the job was done"
"As many times as you have with your mother" (risky in more ways than one)
"I'm no Jack Kennedy"
Although I haven't picked anyone else either, I'm not a Mitt Romney backer. And I've never lived among significant groups of Mormons. But the ones I have known have been good people, and I know BS when I hear it.
By now everyone has heard of Al Sharpton's latest asininity, about Mormons, but the corker has to be the SOB who asked Romney if he had slept with his wife before they got married.
Ah yes, nothing could be more significant in a politician than whether they're HYPOCRITES! And why not? It plays into the MSM's biases - non-lefties have higher standards, so they're more likely to fall short of them. Far better to elect the kinds of whorehopping degenerates you're likely to find as, say, senators from Massachusetts.
I'd like to flip this logic on its head. Let's ask the candidates "Are you a hypocrite? And if not, doesn't that mean that you have no meaningful standards at all for your conduct?"
As for Romney, what should he have said? Where are David Letterman's Top Ten List writers? I'm no Scrappleface, and I'm sure I won't come up with 10, but here goes:
"Why don't you save that question for the debates?"
"It depends on what the meaning of 'have sex' is"
"I was before it before I was against it"
"Yes, but I'm not a Democrat - I wouldn't pull out until the job was done"
"As many times as you have with your mother" (risky in more ways than one)
"I'm no Jack Kennedy"
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Mickey Mouse competition
"Dancing with the Stars" just ended with a touch of justice - we're finally free of this year's winner of the Master P award, Billy Ray Cyrus. I can't see how anyone besides a Howard Stern fan could have ever voted for him based on his dancing skills. Heather Mills outperformed him for sure, but she was voted off two weeks ago. After Billy Ray who can they follow up with - Larry Flynt?
Oh no, not on ABC. We couldn't have a smut peddler on Disney's network.
Yes, Disney owns ABC. Disney also happens to purvey "Hannah Montana", a show starring....Billy Ray Cyrus! Who also records music on the Disney label. Somehow no one saw fit to acknowledge that, and this week host Tom Bergeron even prompted Billy Ray to mention his album.
Hmm, am I suggesting anything? Not yet. But I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest to find that the show had a production meeting every Tuesday morning with the producers, suits and the judges. There, like the producers of professional wrestling, they would decide what is to happen next in order to get and sustain high ratings. If they can work what amounts to a big commercial into what is nominally the entertainment part of the broadcast so much the better. How else to explain Billy Ray's scores from the *judges*?
Not convinced? How about that huge sloppy wet kiss they gave in the form of a retrospective of his time on the show? Yeah, he's "entertaining" to some, but then so is professional wrestling.
Of course the voters haven't distinguished themselves either, and I shudder at the thought that they might be using similar criteria to vote in *political* elections. Good grief, Joey Fatone finished next to last behind Ian Ziering?
Oh sure, it's cool to some to rip on Joey's former band, NSync, and Joey has probably rubbed some fans the wrong way. But if you want to watch Ian Ziering, I'm sure his old show is in reruns somewhere (and Billy Ray's show is in production still). If you don't like good dancing, fine - don't watch the show. Or at least don't vote, so the rest of us can see the better dancers.
Yeah, I'll keep watching. Likewise, sometimes I don't turn the channel when pro wrestling comes on. It doesn't have to be a competently judged contest or even honest competition to be entertaining.
Oh no, not on ABC. We couldn't have a smut peddler on Disney's network.
Yes, Disney owns ABC. Disney also happens to purvey "Hannah Montana", a show starring....Billy Ray Cyrus! Who also records music on the Disney label. Somehow no one saw fit to acknowledge that, and this week host Tom Bergeron even prompted Billy Ray to mention his album.
Hmm, am I suggesting anything? Not yet. But I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest to find that the show had a production meeting every Tuesday morning with the producers, suits and the judges. There, like the producers of professional wrestling, they would decide what is to happen next in order to get and sustain high ratings. If they can work what amounts to a big commercial into what is nominally the entertainment part of the broadcast so much the better. How else to explain Billy Ray's scores from the *judges*?
Not convinced? How about that huge sloppy wet kiss they gave in the form of a retrospective of his time on the show? Yeah, he's "entertaining" to some, but then so is professional wrestling.
Of course the voters haven't distinguished themselves either, and I shudder at the thought that they might be using similar criteria to vote in *political* elections. Good grief, Joey Fatone finished next to last behind Ian Ziering?
Oh sure, it's cool to some to rip on Joey's former band, NSync, and Joey has probably rubbed some fans the wrong way. But if you want to watch Ian Ziering, I'm sure his old show is in reruns somewhere (and Billy Ray's show is in production still). If you don't like good dancing, fine - don't watch the show. Or at least don't vote, so the rest of us can see the better dancers.
Yeah, I'll keep watching. Likewise, sometimes I don't turn the channel when pro wrestling comes on. It doesn't have to be a competently judged contest or even honest competition to be entertaining.
Weaving gold into straw
Sometimes people don't appreciate how management can foul things up. Being here in Chicago, I use the 1990s Bulls as an example. Suppose Phil Jackson had benched Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen and played BJ Armstrong at center and Ed Nealy at point guard. Would the Bulls have won 6 championships in 8 years that way?
Or perhaps Kentucky Derby winner Street Sense ought to be pulling a plow?
Now I have a journalism example too. It appears that incredibly gifted columnist/blogger/father James Lileks will now be a reporter.
Or perhaps Kentucky Derby winner Street Sense ought to be pulling a plow?
Now I have a journalism example too. It appears that incredibly gifted columnist/blogger/father James Lileks will now be a reporter.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Associated partisans
Greensburg, KS was obliterated by a super strong tornado a few days ago. And what did the Associated Press want to write about?
If the Red Cross or other private groups had programs for relief they went unmentioned. But we did read this:
In Kansas, the governor said the state's response was limited by the shifting of emergency equipment, such as tents, trucks and semitrailers, to the war in Iraq.
"Not having the National Guard equipment, which used to be positioned in various parts of the state, to bring in immediately is really going to handicap this effort to rebuild," she said.
Sharon Watson, a spokeswoman for the adjutant general's office, which manages state resources during emergencies, said the state has a shortage of heavy equipment transport trailers, pallet-sized loading systems, Humvees, dump trucks and other large equipment that would be help move massive amount of debris.
"We are never at 100 percent because we are allocated a certain amount from the National Guard Bureau. With the war, we are much shorter than we would be. We have about 40 percent of what is allocated," Watson said.
And they say that *blogs* don't have editors. Is it news when a Democrat administration (funny how that detail was omitted) taking a cheap shot at the war in Iraq? If this is what passes for news reporting, why not add something like "Democrat leaders lost no time in politicizing yet another natural disaster in hopes of wringing advantage from the blood of the victims.""Not having the National Guard equipment, which used to be positioned in various parts of the state, to bring in immediately is really going to handicap this effort to rebuild," she said.
Sharon Watson, a spokeswoman for the adjutant general's office, which manages state resources during emergencies, said the state has a shortage of heavy equipment transport trailers, pallet-sized loading systems, Humvees, dump trucks and other large equipment that would be help move massive amount of debris.
"We are never at 100 percent because we are allocated a certain amount from the National Guard Bureau. With the war, we are much shorter than we would be. We have about 40 percent of what is allocated," Watson said.
If the Red Cross or other private groups had programs for relief they went unmentioned. But we did read this:
City Administrator Steve Hewitt said his job Monday would be to get city government working again. He said he needed to find employees, get purchase orders out, pay employees and bills _ in short, create commerce again in Greensburg.
"Get government going _ that is our No. 1 priority," Hewitt said.
I would expect that someone who made a living from the govt would say that. But "create commerce again"? Sheesh, is the govt the only thing going in Greensburg? And does it belong in the article?
"Get government going _ that is our No. 1 priority," Hewitt said.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Pro choice
The sex educators had some fun a couple of weeks ago at Jane Galt's. They decided that kids have to have it in our public schools, and that's all there is to it. The comments have been closed and this is too longwinded anyway, so here is my no doubt long-awaited take.
Sex education? Sure, there are plenty of things every human being ought to know about it. But perhaps the main one is simply discipline, whether you're talking keeping your hands off the interns, having sex in church, masturbating in a theater, soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom, a quickie in a car parked on the street or plenty of other things that can be and have been done with people who presumably know more than enough to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy. Teaching restraint and manners is a lifetime job, and liberals throw a fit any time a public school tries to teach anything that smacks of an ideology other than their own secular religion that dares not speak its name. Yet even the liberals worship condoms, the use of which (or alternatives) requires discipline in itself and fails regularly enough even when used as directed.
And what of consequences of their actions? About the severest consequences modern kids ever suffer in daily life are perhaps losses at video games. Not everything can be reset and restarted, yet we have people trying to eliminate winning and losing from kids' lives lest they suffer a blow to their self-esteem. Yeah, far better than they should learn of consequences from maternity wards, abortion mills, public health clinics or cops. If we want kids to be responsible about sex, maybe we should teach them to be responsible, period. You can't expect it to be taught in schools, especially to kids who don't even have to do chores or earn money.
You also can't teach anybody much of anything practical in sex education. Well, besides unrolling condoms on bananas. That's not very practical unless they're holding the banana below the waist while they're hornier than goats with three testicles and the banana is subject to going bad any instant. And with young guys that might even be enough to end the show (for a couple of minutes, anyway).
When I was a kid there was no sex education in the public schools I attended, but there wasn't a force in the universe that could have stopped me from finding out everything I could on the subject. But knowing how and why sperm are discharged into a vagina didn't help me achieve same, or to get further opportunities if I ever succeeded.
Now what are schools for, anyway? They're publicly funded because we're interested in producing good citizens. Social engineering for sure, but it's intended to complement the parents, not displace them. They don't and shouldn't have the kids 24/7, so they can't teach the kinds of things that require 24/7 teaching (they can only counter them). And the things that require 24/7 teaching would be pretty much anything but the 3 Rs, history, science, vocational education and maybe PE.
What's more, why have the schools teach kids things that they're sure to pick up on their own if they're interested? IMO sex education falls in that category. Likewise with art and music - let the kids stay after school for that if they want it, or leave it as an elective for kids with acceptable achievement in the core subjects.
One of the best things people should be taught is to get the fundamentals right. Apparently liberal school reformers didn't get the news - like all liberals, they'd rather have govt institutions do dozens of things poorly than a few things right. So we clutter schools with irrelevant nonsense at the expense of fundamentals, like a would-be basketball player who can't dribble, pass or shoot but spends his time practicing slam-dunks.
Hey, if you want your kids to get sex education, teach them yourself. If you're not qualified, just how did you have kids, anyway? If you didn't know what caused them then, surely you've learned something since, right?
(Well alright, maybe you adopted the kid(s). Fine. Remind them that even though their mother didn't keep them, she didn't kill them, and maybe they ought to think about that if they ever contemplate an abortion.)
Face it, there simply aren't any good defensible reasons for requiring sex education in schools. There are some bad ones though. Like this. Even if we must require sex ed in the schools, there's no place for that - it's about promoting particular lifestyles, not any sort of essential knowledge.
Hey, I'm just being "pro-choice"...
Sex education? Sure, there are plenty of things every human being ought to know about it. But perhaps the main one is simply discipline, whether you're talking keeping your hands off the interns
And what of consequences of their actions? About the severest consequences modern kids ever suffer in daily life are perhaps losses at video games. Not everything can be reset and restarted, yet we have people trying to eliminate winning and losing from kids' lives lest they suffer a blow to their self-esteem. Yeah, far better than they should learn of consequences from maternity wards, abortion mills, public health clinics or cops. If we want kids to be responsible about sex, maybe we should teach them to be responsible, period. You can't expect it to be taught in schools, especially to kids who don't even have to do chores or earn money.
You also can't teach anybody much of anything practical in sex education. Well, besides unrolling condoms on bananas. That's not very practical unless they're holding the banana below the waist while they're hornier than goats with three testicles and the banana is subject to going bad any instant. And with young guys that might even be enough to end the show (for a couple of minutes, anyway).
When I was a kid there was no sex education in the public schools I attended, but there wasn't a force in the universe that could have stopped me from finding out everything I could on the subject. But knowing how and why sperm are discharged into a vagina didn't help me achieve same, or to get further opportunities if I ever succeeded.
Now what are schools for, anyway? They're publicly funded because we're interested in producing good citizens. Social engineering for sure, but it's intended to complement the parents, not displace them. They don't and shouldn't have the kids 24/7, so they can't teach the kinds of things that require 24/7 teaching (they can only counter them). And the things that require 24/7 teaching would be pretty much anything but the 3 Rs, history, science, vocational education and maybe PE.
What's more, why have the schools teach kids things that they're sure to pick up on their own if they're interested? IMO sex education falls in that category. Likewise with art and music - let the kids stay after school for that if they want it, or leave it as an elective for kids with acceptable achievement in the core subjects.
One of the best things people should be taught is to get the fundamentals right. Apparently liberal school reformers didn't get the news - like all liberals, they'd rather have govt institutions do dozens of things poorly than a few things right. So we clutter schools with irrelevant nonsense at the expense of fundamentals, like a would-be basketball player who can't dribble, pass or shoot but spends his time practicing slam-dunks.
Hey, if you want your kids to get sex education, teach them yourself. If you're not qualified, just how did you have kids, anyway? If you didn't know what caused them then, surely you've learned something since, right?
(Well alright, maybe you adopted the kid(s). Fine. Remind them that even though their mother didn't keep them, she didn't kill them, and maybe they ought to think about that if they ever contemplate an abortion.)
Face it, there simply aren't any good defensible reasons for requiring sex education in schools. There are some bad ones though. Like this. Even if we must require sex ed in the schools, there's no place for that - it's about promoting particular lifestyles, not any sort of essential knowledge.
Hey, I'm just being "pro-choice"...
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Short memories
Read something like this and it's easy to imagine the fall of civilization. Well, yeah, this was worse, but how anyone can vote for Democrats after what we've seen so far is amazing. Stay home, vote 3rd party, *something*, but don't vote for those creeps.
And has everyone forgotten how miserable everything got when the Dems ran the show with numbers that could defeat filibusters and we had that insufferable sanctimonious wuss Jimmy Carter in the White House? They fouled things up so badly that we elected Ronald Reagan. We hear plenty of moaning about current circumstances, but the numbers from the Carter years show that this is nothing but partisan yammering. If you want it back, all you have to do is vote Dem.
Voting for and even declaring failure in the Middle East? Nothing the Republicans have done even compares to this Dem disgrace. And here in IL Gov. Blagojevich is grasping for huge programs like a madman while he can - the last couple of Dem governors of IL have wound up in prison upon leaving office, and he's under serious investigation.
Yet lack of enthusiasm for voting for Republicans is understandable. They never had large margins of control, they had the press fighting back tooth and nail, and many of their numbers were RINOS anyway, but still they didn't deliver what people wanted from them. So if govt is to be about nothing but wealth transfers and impotent posturing after all, we might as well vote for the Dems.
But when people like some of my relatives, who have a history of voting Democrat, start cussing the Dems, something's going on.
And has everyone forgotten how miserable everything got when the Dems ran the show with numbers that could defeat filibusters and we had that insufferable sanctimonious wuss Jimmy Carter in the White House? They fouled things up so badly that we elected Ronald Reagan. We hear plenty of moaning about current circumstances, but the numbers from the Carter years show that this is nothing but partisan yammering. If you want it back, all you have to do is vote Dem.
Voting for and even declaring failure in the Middle East? Nothing the Republicans have done even compares to this Dem disgrace. And here in IL Gov. Blagojevich is grasping for huge programs like a madman while he can - the last couple of Dem governors of IL have wound up in prison upon leaving office, and he's under serious investigation.
Yet lack of enthusiasm for voting for Republicans is understandable. They never had large margins of control, they had the press fighting back tooth and nail, and many of their numbers were RINOS anyway, but still they didn't deliver what people wanted from them. So if govt is to be about nothing but wealth transfers and impotent posturing after all, we might as well vote for the Dems.
But when people like some of my relatives, who have a history of voting Democrat, start cussing the Dems, something's going on.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Membership of the Congresses of the United States
Greg Hlatky has done a lot of dogged work putting together this page - check it out.
In which I too mock Sheryl Crow
Sheryl Crow has definitely soaked up too much sun. If you read the news or any blogs yesterday you've heard of her policy prescription for saving the planet. Yep, just one square of TP per trip, folks. What with her hippie predilections we should be happy she uses any at all. And I can't wait to hear her address feminine hygiene.
I wonder if Rosie O'Donnell will be following along? Eww, that one square ain't gonna do it. She'll need to use the roofer's definition of a square - 100 square feet. Whether that will be sufficient remains to be seen - paparazzi, do your stuff!
Now just to show how classy and restrained this blog is, not that *I* didn't write anything like some of the blog comments I saw in various places. For instance, it's been suggested that the departure of Lance Armstrong was related to, um, paperwork. Stuff like that has no place on this blog so I'd never write it here. And certain words don't appear in this blog either, so I didn't title this post "saving the planet the asshole way". Nosirree, we have standards here.
And then there was the account of her and Laurie David running into Karl Rove. Sheryl Crow seems to have battered him with her finger. He took action to avoid this, and Laurie "I'm not perfect" David marveled that anyone would refuse to be jabbed in the chest by Sheryl Crow. Now we know.
(And again, this blog has standards - I would never propose that we challenge blindfolded people to poke Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow in the chest and try to tell them apart. That's *class*.)
I agree with Freedom Eden. We all have our own particular needs of course, so we can make offsetting sacrifices in other areas. Like, say, forgoing the use of private jets.
Seriously, I shudder to think of people like this running the govt.
I wonder if Rosie O'Donnell will be following along? Eww, that one square ain't gonna do it. She'll need to use the roofer's definition of a square - 100 square feet. Whether that will be sufficient remains to be seen - paparazzi, do your stuff!
Now just to show how classy and restrained this blog is, not that *I* didn't write anything like some of the blog comments I saw in various places. For instance, it's been suggested that the departure of Lance Armstrong was related to, um, paperwork. Stuff like that has no place on this blog so I'd never write it here. And certain words don't appear in this blog either, so I didn't title this post "saving the planet the asshole way". Nosirree, we have standards here.
And then there was the account of her and Laurie David running into Karl Rove. Sheryl Crow seems to have battered him with her finger. He took action to avoid this, and Laurie "I'm not perfect" David marveled that anyone would refuse to be jabbed in the chest by Sheryl Crow. Now we know.
(And again, this blog has standards - I would never propose that we challenge blindfolded people to poke Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow in the chest and try to tell them apart. That's *class*.)
I agree with Freedom Eden. We all have our own particular needs of course, so we can make offsetting sacrifices in other areas. Like, say, forgoing the use of private jets.
Seriously, I shudder to think of people like this running the govt.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
More overreaction to VT massacre
Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, it's a bit overstated IMO. At least, I'll trade a little liberty for a lot of safety, but even then only temporarily. Examples might be, say, quarantines.
But with quarantines we have a disease we can diagnose. If only we were so good at diagnosing mental illness. (At least the press isn't very good, anyway) Yet we're hearing rumblings about simplifying involuntary institutionalization in response to the Virginia Tech slaughter, and that's potentially very scary.
For instance, it's often very tempting to attribute disagreement to mental defects, especially in politics. In some countries it has been policy, and dissidents would wind up in mental hospitals or "reeducation" facilities.
But it can't happen here, right? In fact, it has, and the mere threat of institutionalization has been used for intimidation, Here's an example.
Now that we've seen Congress change hands twice in the last 15 years, you'd hope that both major parties would have learned something important: you don't ever let the govt have a power that you wouldn't trust your opponents with. No more political theater of Congressional investigators and special prosecutors - the Dems could just declare President Bush, VP Cheney, Tom Delay and countless others mentally ill instead harassing them, and the rest of us would cage Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Al Gore and other spigots of senselessness.
IMO any safeguards against political or other misuse that were strong enough to be worthwhile would render the whole project useless. But I suppose I could compromise a little. So I propose the Brazen Bull Act of 2007 - Let's find the people who are in favor of simplified institutionalization and lock them up.
But with quarantines we have a disease we can diagnose. If only we were so good at diagnosing mental illness. (At least the press isn't very good, anyway) Yet we're hearing rumblings about simplifying involuntary institutionalization in response to the Virginia Tech slaughter, and that's potentially very scary.
For instance, it's often very tempting to attribute disagreement to mental defects, especially in politics. In some countries it has been policy, and dissidents would wind up in mental hospitals or "reeducation" facilities.
But it can't happen here, right? In fact, it has, and the mere threat of institutionalization has been used for intimidation, Here's an example.
Now that we've seen Congress change hands twice in the last 15 years, you'd hope that both major parties would have learned something important: you don't ever let the govt have a power that you wouldn't trust your opponents with. No more political theater of Congressional investigators and special prosecutors - the Dems could just declare President Bush, VP Cheney, Tom Delay and countless others mentally ill instead harassing them, and the rest of us would cage Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, Al Gore and other spigots of senselessness.
IMO any safeguards against political or other misuse that were strong enough to be worthwhile would render the whole project useless. But I suppose I could compromise a little. So I propose the Brazen Bull Act of 2007 - Let's find the people who are in favor of simplified institutionalization and lock them up.
Who is Sick?
Who is Sick? has incredible potential. Just check it out.
Then try to imagine how much this free product would have cost if the govt had tried to implement it.
Thanks to Glenn Reynolds (who I only credit about 10% of the time, as if he'd notice the difference on his hit counter) and Boing-Boing for the links.
Then try to imagine how much this free product would have cost if the govt had tried to implement it.
Thanks to Glenn Reynolds (who I only credit about 10% of the time, as if he'd notice the difference on his hit counter) and Boing-Boing for the links.
Just watch it
I got a lot of hits for mentioning Julianne Hough last week, but that's not why I'm mentioning her and celebrity partner Apolo Anton Ohno again. Just watch the video. It's the best performance I can remember from the show after 4 seasons.
Watermelon Day
Ha, another global warming rally impacted by cold weather. And now we must suffer "Earth Day", where greens prostrate themselves before the great goddess Gaea and pledge to badger their betters another year.
This repeated collective silliness annoys me. Why? Because it's ineffective - it's nothing but a big party for likeminded poseurs. (Yeah, they need love too, but in their case all it does is spread more disease and cause abortions). Then they ride home in their SUVs and leave their trash behind.
And because they're dominated by lefties, all of their prescriptions have to involve the govt - heaven forbid that lefties would actually do or pay for anything themselves.
Who says govts can do anything? All any of them can do is take your money, spend it on what they want, pick favorites and deprive you of life, liberty and property if you don't cooperate. This doesn't work with CO2 or the sun. Increases in solar activity may well account for most of the claimed changes in our global average temperature anyway, rendering anthropogenic contributions as significant as spitting in the ocean is to the tides.
But let's suppose we puny humans are causing the change, and that we really know the consequences, that they don't result in net improvement, and that dealing with the results isn't better or cheaper than changing our ways. Then what?
After conservation, the answer lies where it always has - in science and engineering. You want cleaner power? - we're the guys who make it happen. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Tell us what you want and give us the time and money and we'll do all that the laws of physics permit. And who do you think developed, say, solar PV? An activist? A celebrity? A lawyer? A politician?
Yet when was the last time Greenpox et al ever spent a dime on engineering or basic scientific research? No, their history is about imposing additional costs on clean, reliable power sources like nuclear power. Their obsession with energy threatens our supplies, and if you think some forms of energy are dangerous, think of how dangerous it will be *not* to have the energy we need.
I suppose that the lack of support makes sense to them, because they ignore engineers and scientists if they don't like the answers. Colby Cosh gives a terrific example wrt windpower here. The problem, which ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention, is that wind is not necessarily in sync with power demands.
No problem, we'll just store the juice when it's there and dole it out when it's needed, right? Sure, once we get affordable reasonably efficient and reliable non-site-specific storage mechanisms that can work on utility scale. This will work well with solar, windpower and handling peak loads on the grid without having to keep usually oil-fired "peakers" running. Win, win, win - someone will get richer than Bill Gates if they can make this happen.
Again, where's Greenpox et al? They could be training scientists and engineers or funding research toward such a universally useful technology. But as usual they're spending it on lobbyists, exhibitionists and more fundraisers to defoliate us with their mailings about protecting the rainforests.
Lefties aren't about anything but power and control, and any issue they get involved with will be redirected to serve their political ends. The sooner the true greens kick out the reds the sooner we can make environmentalism the nonpartisan issue it always should have been.
This repeated collective silliness annoys me. Why? Because it's ineffective - it's nothing but a big party for likeminded poseurs. (Yeah, they need love too, but in their case all it does is spread more disease and cause abortions). Then they ride home in their SUVs and leave their trash behind.
And because they're dominated by lefties, all of their prescriptions have to involve the govt - heaven forbid that lefties would actually do or pay for anything themselves.
Who says govts can do anything? All any of them can do is take your money, spend it on what they want, pick favorites and deprive you of life, liberty and property if you don't cooperate. This doesn't work with CO2 or the sun. Increases in solar activity may well account for most of the claimed changes in our global average temperature anyway, rendering anthropogenic contributions as significant as spitting in the ocean is to the tides.
But let's suppose we puny humans are causing the change, and that we really know the consequences, that they don't result in net improvement, and that dealing with the results isn't better or cheaper than changing our ways. Then what?
After conservation, the answer lies where it always has - in science and engineering. You want cleaner power? - we're the guys who make it happen. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Tell us what you want and give us the time and money and we'll do all that the laws of physics permit. And who do you think developed, say, solar PV? An activist? A celebrity? A lawyer? A politician?
Yet when was the last time Greenpox et al ever spent a dime on engineering or basic scientific research? No, their history is about imposing additional costs on clean, reliable power sources like nuclear power. Their obsession with energy threatens our supplies, and if you think some forms of energy are dangerous, think of how dangerous it will be *not* to have the energy we need.
I suppose that the lack of support makes sense to them, because they ignore engineers and scientists if they don't like the answers. Colby Cosh gives a terrific example wrt windpower here. The problem, which ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention, is that wind is not necessarily in sync with power demands.
No problem, we'll just store the juice when it's there and dole it out when it's needed, right? Sure, once we get affordable reasonably efficient and reliable non-site-specific storage mechanisms that can work on utility scale. This will work well with solar, windpower and handling peak loads on the grid without having to keep usually oil-fired "peakers" running. Win, win, win - someone will get richer than Bill Gates if they can make this happen.
Again, where's Greenpox et al? They could be training scientists and engineers or funding research toward such a universally useful technology. But as usual they're spending it on lobbyists, exhibitionists and more fundraisers to defoliate us with their mailings about protecting the rainforests.
Lefties aren't about anything but power and control, and any issue they get involved with will be redirected to serve their political ends. The sooner the true greens kick out the reds the sooner we can make environmentalism the nonpartisan issue it always should have been.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Medical miracle
What would a human being look like if he turned inside out? Take a look over here and stay tuned - you might yet get to see it if the author sticks his head any farther up his backside. (You might think that farfetched, but it *would* explain his outlook).
I'm not a "gun nut" myself, but perhaps Mr. Cole can help me - I sure can't think of any gun organizations that have suggested that guns should be available to all comers. They all emphasize gun safety, and training can be found by anyone who seeks it. (And if sex education ought to be in schools then by all means let's have gun education there too - you know they're going to experiment, so let's make sure they do it safely, and teaching abstinence can't possibly help).Of course we'd expect that permitting guns on a campus would lead to more guns being there. But that's not the goal - the goal is to enhance security on campus with trained volunteers. The legislation that would have allowed the guns on campus was restricted to trained users over 21.
It's not so easy to get a gun, they aren't cheap, they require maintenance, and they're heavy and inconvenient to carry. And if you have one legally registered to you you'd better make sure that it isn't stolen or misused. These qualities don't appeal to college students or a lot of others besides. So it's hard for me to believe that we'll have many takers on loosened gun restrictions.
No doubt the next potential mass killer is picking his target based on local gun laws. The thought process must go something like this: "I may be willing to kill strangers in cold blood, but violate gun restrictions? No way!" Or perhaps "No, I'm too young to have a gun - I'll come back then I'm 21 and have the training." Again, sentient beings realize that a group not known for respecting other laws is not particularly like to respect gun laws either, so all the restrictions can do is restrain the law-abiding and make them more likely to be victims.
But I'll take it all back if Mr. Cole can show me a case of a gun harming anyone of its own volition.
Mr. Cole isn't through yet - from the comments:
Of course Mr. Cole isn't the only one writing comments:
The VPI killer had already violated a few other laws too - why didn't the "legal" charm protect VPI against him?
Worldwide experience is that you can't keep guns out, and the nations that try still have plenty of spectacular gun crime. If it must be, Congress can always pass a resolution in favor of safe gun use. It too will be an ineffective gesture, but it would thrill the moral masturbators without harming the rest of us through eroded rights and safety.
Antigunners aren't going to shut up of course. But at least they can be recognized for what they are. You know, as if there really are any agnostics left on this issue.
Again, I don’t know what fantasy world people live in that “more guns on campus” is the solution to the tragedy the other day.
Yeah, pick on a straw man - he can't hurt you. Not even if he has a gun. Of course sentient beings would conclude from that that it's not the guns that are the problem, but then we're talking antigunners here.I'm not a "gun nut" myself, but perhaps Mr. Cole can help me - I sure can't think of any gun organizations that have suggested that guns should be available to all comers. They all emphasize gun safety, and training can be found by anyone who seeks it. (And if sex education ought to be in schools then by all means let's have gun education there too - you know they're going to experiment, so let's make sure they do it safely, and teaching abstinence can't possibly help).Of course we'd expect that permitting guns on a campus would lead to more guns being there. But that's not the goal - the goal is to enhance security on campus with trained volunteers. The legislation that would have allowed the guns on campus was restricted to trained users over 21.
Colleges are a very unique cross-section of the population, composed of 18-22 year olds, the most violent members of society
Yeah, I was one once too. But college students are not the subdemographic that runs up the score on crime. Or did the Crips et al get their colors from their alma maters? Perhaps Mr. Cole thinks that parents on Chicago's South Side should warn their kids to avoid the University of Chicago campus lest they should be harmed by all those criminal, violent college students.As far as I am concerned, only if you want more gun violence would you support heavily armed students on every campus.
Is that even remotely fair as a characterization of the defeated law mentioned above? A gun in the right hands in the right place and time could have reduced the gun violence, and has already done so at past school shootings. One of them was even in Virginia in the same part of the state. See lots of examples of handgun self-defense hereIt's not so easy to get a gun, they aren't cheap, they require maintenance, and they're heavy and inconvenient to carry. And if you have one legally registered to you you'd better make sure that it isn't stolen or misused. These qualities don't appeal to college students or a lot of others besides. So it's hard for me to believe that we'll have many takers on loosened gun restrictions.
No doubt the next potential mass killer is picking his target based on local gun laws. The thought process must go something like this: "I may be willing to kill strangers in cold blood, but violate gun restrictions? No way!" Or perhaps "No, I'm too young to have a gun - I'll come back then I'm 21 and have the training." Again, sentient beings realize that a group not known for respecting other laws is not particularly like to respect gun laws either, so all the restrictions can do is restrain the law-abiding and make them more likely to be victims.
But I'll take it all back if Mr. Cole can show me a case of a gun harming anyone of its own volition.
I refuse to let the actions of a crazed mass murderer dictate policy decisions that would have broad and potentially disastrous implications for society. And that is what this is really about- knee-jerk reactions to the actions of a crazy person.
OK. But a little balance would be in order. Mr. Cole neglected to mention that the antigun ghouls are again seeking to cash in on the blood of victims, while a bill to permit trained people over 21 to carry guns on campus at least had potential to prevent or at least limit the carnage based on past experience. Perhaps that was an oversight, but I don't think so.Mr. Cole isn't through yet - from the comments:
But you are still dealing with the base aggression and lack of full and complete brain development that comes with 18-22 year olds. I, for one, do not want to add firearms to an already volatile situation that contains immaturity, hormones, stressful and tumultuous times, etc.
Yeah, that's it - given a choice between beer money and buying and maintaining a gun, the college kids will all go for the guns. Do the authorities have any idea how many students already have guns on campus? After all, they do such a terrific job keeping drugs and booze off campus. And then we get this:At any rate, it is up to those who wish to propose a drastic policy change such as free-fire zones on campus to prove that it would be fine. Not the other way around.
That's funny, I feel the same way about Constitutional rights like the 2nd Amendment. Free-fire zones? - how asinine can a mischaracterization get? Of course Mr. Cole isn't the only one writing comments:
Handgun control needs to be national. Regardless of the laws on concealed carry, the fact is that a handgun is very concealable. As long as they’re legal anywhere in the country, they can and will be carried and concealed everywhere.
What's the magic power of this word "legal"? I lived in a nominally dry county once and it had some of the worst alcohol abuse problems in the state. Abortions certainly were common enough before Roe v. Wade. Prohibition didn't exactly work, and we do a hellacious job of keeping out illegal drugs and aliens too. To hear some talk, we can't even keep criminals out of the White House. Ban legal gun sales, and it won't take a week for illegal guns to come in by land, sea and air. As if they weren't already.The VPI killer had already violated a few other laws too - why didn't the "legal" charm protect VPI against him?
Worldwide experience is that you can't keep guns out, and the nations that try still have plenty of spectacular gun crime. If it must be, Congress can always pass a resolution in favor of safe gun use. It too will be an ineffective gesture, but it would thrill the moral masturbators without harming the rest of us through eroded rights and safety.
Antigunners aren't going to shut up of course. But at least they can be recognized for what they are. You know, as if there really are any agnostics left on this issue.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Think like a mass murderer
Let's get psychopathic for a moment. No specifics, just yes or no.
Let's suppose you intended to kill as many people as you could (and optionally were willing to die in the process). Would you use a gun?
So you can't or won't think that way? Then think about what the most infamous mass killers use. You know, terrorists. When they really want to run up the score like this week's creep did, do they use guns?
Similarly, alternatives were available here (engineering students probably would have known what some of them were - fortunately we were dealing with an English major). If you can't think of any alternatives, well, never mind what they are. Anyway, would anybody be any happier if the victims had died from another cause?
But we all know that the Brady Bunch will be trying to use this tragedy to advance their totalitarian-friendly agenda.
Let's suppose you intended to kill as many people as you could (and optionally were willing to die in the process). Would you use a gun?
So you can't or won't think that way? Then think about what the most infamous mass killers use. You know, terrorists. When they really want to run up the score like this week's creep did, do they use guns?
Similarly, alternatives were available here (engineering students probably would have known what some of them were - fortunately we were dealing with an English major). If you can't think of any alternatives, well, never mind what they are. Anyway, would anybody be any happier if the victims had died from another cause?
But we all know that the Brady Bunch will be trying to use this tragedy to advance their totalitarian-friendly agenda.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Virginia Tech massacre: blame class warfare!
By now everyone has heard of the mass killings at Virginia Tech. The usual suspects have been heard from claiming that somehow it was the guns that were at fault, as if they'd have been happier if the killer had used bombs.
Those usual suspects are disproportionately liberals. Those same liberals disproportionately fuss about income inequality, CEO compensation, progressive taxation, and other ideas that can be lumped fairly under the heading of "class warfare".
Well, according to the Chicago Tribune the killer left a note railing about, among other things, "rich kids".
Ah, was he inflamed by liberals and their class warfare rhetoric? Is John Edwards inspiring the next wave of remorseless mass killers with his "Two Americas" tripe? (Heaven knows it has nothing to do with $400 haircuts)
I await the editorials from the New York Times.
Those usual suspects are disproportionately liberals. Those same liberals disproportionately fuss about income inequality, CEO compensation, progressive taxation, and other ideas that can be lumped fairly under the heading of "class warfare".
Well, according to the Chicago Tribune the killer left a note railing about, among other things, "rich kids".
Ah, was he inflamed by liberals and their class warfare rhetoric? Is John Edwards inspiring the next wave of remorseless mass killers with his "Two Americas" tripe? (Heaven knows it has nothing to do with $400 haircuts)
I await the editorials from the New York Times.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
False start
Mark Twain once said “The cat, having sat upon a hot stove lid, will not sit upon a hot stove lid again. But he won't sit upon a cold stove lid, either.”
And those cats up in Cheektowaga, NY will remember their failed solar street lights for a long time.
I don't know the technical particulars of this installation, but I would have had plenty of questions about it. But maybe snow didn't collect on the solar collectors. Maybe the battery capacities were appropriate and weren't impaired by the low temperatures you can expect near Buffalo, NY. Maybe the insolation levels were appropriate on average and they just had a 100 year event. Maybe the locations chosen were far enough from power supplies that it made sense for each pole to have its own independent solar power supply with no backup.
If they just had to make some sort of EC (environmentally correct) gesture, why not pick something that would be less spectacularly obvious if it failed?
I bet it'll be a long time before they'll try something like this again. All because some people won't wait for technologies to mature.
From Ecotality, featuring Bill Hobbs.
And those cats up in Cheektowaga, NY will remember their failed solar street lights for a long time.
I don't know the technical particulars of this installation, but I would have had plenty of questions about it. But maybe snow didn't collect on the solar collectors. Maybe the battery capacities were appropriate and weren't impaired by the low temperatures you can expect near Buffalo, NY. Maybe the insolation levels were appropriate on average and they just had a 100 year event. Maybe the locations chosen were far enough from power supplies that it made sense for each pole to have its own independent solar power supply with no backup.
If they just had to make some sort of EC (environmentally correct) gesture, why not pick something that would be less spectacularly obvious if it failed?
I bet it'll be a long time before they'll try something like this again. All because some people won't wait for technologies to mature.
From Ecotality, featuring Bill Hobbs.
Free pot for everyone!
No, not yet. Just a proposal for a Cabinet level "Department of Peace". Won't someone get a butterfly net and take Kucinich and his cosponsors away?
It's been referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Let's hope that they overlook it.
From The Corner and Tigerhawk.
It's been referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Let's hope that they overlook it.
From The Corner and Tigerhawk.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Justice at last?
You've heard of David Duke, right? The ex-con who used to run the Ku Klux Klan? Not only that, he's a Holocaust denier, and if that's enough for you, he's a Southerner and a Democrat turned *REPUBLICAN*!
Anyway, did you know that Duke University was named after him?
No?
That's good, because it isn't true. The school existed long before David Duke was born, and was renamed for a major donor who got his money from tobacco. There, *that's* better. What would be better yet would be if the donor's name had been Lynch.
It's also not true that all the Duke staff members who were so quick to condemn the lacrosse players at Duke are in fact acting out of guilt for their own histories of raping black women. I can't prove it, but surely *some* of them are innocent.
(They may have been quick to condemn, but they have their limits. The lacrosse players might have been called rapists, but at least no one called them anything like "nappy-headed hos". Now *that* would be offensive.)
Even so, I'll bet that *this* is true - someone who donated money to Duke has also given money to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Eww, talk about an indelible stain.
No, we must make sure that any such allegations are nipped in the bud before they become immortal on Google.
Hey, maybe we need a new verb: to duke. Meaning something like "to condemn without justification and then not to apologize afterwards". Or maybe we could start saying "Dukism" instead of "McCarthyism".
IMO until Duke University management and faculty Imus themselves before the lacrosse team men for piling on after the vicious slanders by Crystal Gail Mangum, they deserve as much disgrace as we can heap on them. And they can start by running about 88 people out of town.
Anyway, did you know that Duke University was named after him?
No?
That's good, because it isn't true. The school existed long before David Duke was born, and was renamed for a major donor who got his money from tobacco. There, *that's* better. What would be better yet would be if the donor's name had been Lynch.
It's also not true that all the Duke staff members who were so quick to condemn the lacrosse players at Duke are in fact acting out of guilt for their own histories of raping black women. I can't prove it, but surely *some* of them are innocent.
(They may have been quick to condemn, but they have their limits. The lacrosse players might have been called rapists, but at least no one called them anything like "nappy-headed hos". Now *that* would be offensive.)
Even so, I'll bet that *this* is true - someone who donated money to Duke has also given money to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Eww, talk about an indelible stain.
No, we must make sure that any such allegations are nipped in the bud before they become immortal on Google.
Hey, maybe we need a new verb: to duke. Meaning something like "to condemn without justification and then not to apologize afterwards". Or maybe we could start saying "Dukism" instead of "McCarthyism".
IMO until Duke University management and faculty Imus themselves before the lacrosse team men for piling on after the vicious slanders by Crystal Gail Mangum, they deserve as much disgrace as we can heap on them. And they can start by running about 88 people out of town.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Calling a spade a spade
I don't listen to Don Imus and I don't know his history. And you won't ever win any charm or class points by referring to a bunch of young women as "nappy-headed hos". But where are all the free speech people about now that Imus is under attack?
Yeah, everybody knows you'd better not say, um, well, you know, the *N-WORD*! For crying out loud, you can't even say a perfectly innocent word like "niggardly" nowadays.
Whatever the virtues of such extralegal prohibition, at least the news has gotten around. It would be nice if the same rules applied to alleged "hip hop artists", who ought to be credited for spreading the word to a bunch of white suburban kids who otherwise wouldn't hear it at home, and they repeat what they hear.
What's is it about "nappy-headed hos" that earns so much time in the media? It isn't exactly race specific - blacks (can I say that?) aren't the only ones with kinky hair. It's gender-specific, but it's not the feminists who are fussing, and what credibility do they have after years of sucking up to Democrats anyway?
No, this is about publicity for opportunists like Al Sharpton. Yes, the "reverend" who has yet to apologize for his role in the Tawana Brawley affair.
Am I being obtuse in suggesting that this is overblown? Whatever the answer, IMO if we're must raise such a fuss over certain words, how about identifying them once and for all?
I suppose we can make some pretty good guesses. I hadn't even heard "pickaninny" when someone was busted for using and defending it. Other candidates would be "Jungle bunny" or "jigaboo", which in my experience are so uncommon that you can't expect younger people to know them. I suppose references to watermelons, spear-chuckin', fried chicken and chitlins will have to go too.
But it's no use, because this isn't about grievances, this is about kowtowing. The ladies of the Rutgers basketball team have a grievance. The rest of the world should butt out.
Incidentally, congratulations to the Rutgers ladies' basketball team for a fine season. It's heartbreaking to work so hard and then finish second.
But nothing that happens to Don Imus will bring that title to New Jersey.
Postscript: the Rutgers ladies just appeared on the tube. (I can't resist noting that the black girls I saw had straightened their hair - now we know the *real* reason why they're ticked...)
Anyway, those quoted on TV spoke up more about the "ho" part. One, when asked about the popularization of "ho" in hip-hop, said it was no different and also ought to be discouraged. Good for her.
Yeah, everybody knows you'd better not say, um, well, you know, the *N-WORD*! For crying out loud, you can't even say a perfectly innocent word like "niggardly" nowadays.
Whatever the virtues of such extralegal prohibition, at least the news has gotten around. It would be nice if the same rules applied to alleged "hip hop artists", who ought to be credited for spreading the word to a bunch of white suburban kids who otherwise wouldn't hear it at home, and they repeat what they hear.
What's is it about "nappy-headed hos" that earns so much time in the media? It isn't exactly race specific - blacks (can I say that?) aren't the only ones with kinky hair. It's gender-specific, but it's not the feminists who are fussing, and what credibility do they have after years of sucking up to Democrats anyway?
No, this is about publicity for opportunists like Al Sharpton. Yes, the "reverend" who has yet to apologize for his role in the Tawana Brawley affair.
Am I being obtuse in suggesting that this is overblown? Whatever the answer, IMO if we're must raise such a fuss over certain words, how about identifying them once and for all?
I suppose we can make some pretty good guesses. I hadn't even heard "pickaninny" when someone was busted for using and defending it. Other candidates would be "Jungle bunny" or "jigaboo", which in my experience are so uncommon that you can't expect younger people to know them. I suppose references to watermelons, spear-chuckin', fried chicken and chitlins will have to go too.
But it's no use, because this isn't about grievances, this is about kowtowing. The ladies of the Rutgers basketball team have a grievance. The rest of the world should butt out.
Incidentally, congratulations to the Rutgers ladies' basketball team for a fine season. It's heartbreaking to work so hard and then finish second.
But nothing that happens to Don Imus will bring that title to New Jersey.
Postscript: the Rutgers ladies just appeared on the tube. (I can't resist noting that the black girls I saw had straightened their hair - now we know the *real* reason why they're ticked...)
Anyway, those quoted on TV spoke up more about the "ho" part. One, when asked about the popularization of "ho" in hip-hop, said it was no different and also ought to be discouraged. Good for her.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
My kind of tonw
There's nothing like solidarity, but how far do you go?
It happened in Chicago. Someone came in for a tattoo that in part read "Chi-town". What he got instead said "Chi-tonw". He's suing the tattoo artist.
But the tattoo artist has friends. How do you know? They're all getting the same tattoo, including the "Chi-tonw".
It turns out that the plaintiff approved the tattoo before it was applied. Unfortunately, it appears that he did it with a mirror. Whoops.
Anyway, I hope he loses. But then he'll probably be back to sue the friends for using his design without his permission.
It happened in Chicago. Someone came in for a tattoo that in part read "Chi-town". What he got instead said "Chi-tonw". He's suing the tattoo artist.
But the tattoo artist has friends. How do you know? They're all getting the same tattoo, including the "Chi-tonw".
It turns out that the plaintiff approved the tattoo before it was applied. Unfortunately, it appears that he did it with a mirror. Whoops.
Anyway, I hope he loses. But then he'll probably be back to sue the friends for using his design without his permission.
Monday, April 09, 2007
DWTS year 4, week 4
The fourth season of "Dancing with the Stars" is well underway with the biggest bunch of "stars" ever. Unfortunately more people doesn't mean more total talent. The best clue is that a woman with one leg (Heather Mills) is one of the more successful competitors.
The judges aren't happy, and before anyone had danced one of the judges, Len Goodman, reamed all the survivors for slacking. He claimed that the celebs had been putting in only 13 hours of practice on average between shows vs. 19 in past comps, and the scores on average seem to be lower. The feedback was what I'll call "frank"
The one who really got reamed was Clyde Drexler. He'll always have problems because of his 6' 7" height, but the judges actually suggested that he wasn't putting in enough effort. Clyde didn't take that lying down and offered to meet one of the judges outside. He was kidding, I hope. But the judges are right - he basically just followed his partner around the floor on flat feet, and but for the time of the music it was hard to tell he was doing a paso doble instead of a waltz.
Billy Ray Cyrus is coming along but has a long way to go. One clip showed his partner entering the ladies room and then we heard sobbing. The best thing he has going for him is his humility. IMO the judges have been generous to him and Heather Mills if only for their effort.
That's not to say that Heather Mills isn't doing as well as can be expected and more besides. You can't exactly fault her for, say, not pointing her prosthetic left foot when her entire lower leg is a prosthetic, and DWTS certainly isn't a formal dance competition, but at some point we deteriorate from supportiveness to political correctness. She should still be on the show, but not until the last month.
John Ratzenberger wasn't much better than Drexler. But that probably won't be enough to send him out the door with Paulina Porizkova and Shandi Finnessey, because the men either don't vote or, more likely, they don't even watch.
That's bad news for Leeza Gibbons and her partner, the best male pro out there, Tony Dovolani. You wouldn't guess that Ms. Gibbons is 50, but then at times you might not guess she's a dancer either. That's harsh, but she didn't have a good night. My bet is that she's gone after tomorrow.
The young guys are doing OK. So far it looks like Joey Fatone (with Kym Johnson), Apolo Anton Ohno (with Julianne Hough), and Ian Ziering (with two-time winner Cheryl Burke) will be the last to go. Of the women, Laila Ali (with Maksim Chmerkovskiy) will be around for a while too.
In all fairness, we were told from the beginning that this bunch started training later than their predecessors, so expectations had to be lower. Like with most beginners with no dance experience (myself included, in spades), they're very stiff, and that doesn't make for good routines.
But it still makes for a good show altogether. If you've never seen it, give it a try.
The judges aren't happy, and before anyone had danced one of the judges, Len Goodman, reamed all the survivors for slacking. He claimed that the celebs had been putting in only 13 hours of practice on average between shows vs. 19 in past comps, and the scores on average seem to be lower. The feedback was what I'll call "frank"
The one who really got reamed was Clyde Drexler. He'll always have problems because of his 6' 7" height, but the judges actually suggested that he wasn't putting in enough effort. Clyde didn't take that lying down and offered to meet one of the judges outside. He was kidding, I hope. But the judges are right - he basically just followed his partner around the floor on flat feet, and but for the time of the music it was hard to tell he was doing a paso doble instead of a waltz.
Billy Ray Cyrus is coming along but has a long way to go. One clip showed his partner entering the ladies room and then we heard sobbing. The best thing he has going for him is his humility. IMO the judges have been generous to him and Heather Mills if only for their effort.
That's not to say that Heather Mills isn't doing as well as can be expected and more besides. You can't exactly fault her for, say, not pointing her prosthetic left foot when her entire lower leg is a prosthetic, and DWTS certainly isn't a formal dance competition, but at some point we deteriorate from supportiveness to political correctness. She should still be on the show, but not until the last month.
John Ratzenberger wasn't much better than Drexler. But that probably won't be enough to send him out the door with Paulina Porizkova and Shandi Finnessey, because the men either don't vote or, more likely, they don't even watch.
That's bad news for Leeza Gibbons and her partner, the best male pro out there, Tony Dovolani. You wouldn't guess that Ms. Gibbons is 50, but then at times you might not guess she's a dancer either. That's harsh, but she didn't have a good night. My bet is that she's gone after tomorrow.
The young guys are doing OK. So far it looks like Joey Fatone (with Kym Johnson), Apolo Anton Ohno (with Julianne Hough), and Ian Ziering (with two-time winner Cheryl Burke) will be the last to go. Of the women, Laila Ali (with Maksim Chmerkovskiy) will be around for a while too.
In all fairness, we were told from the beginning that this bunch started training later than their predecessors, so expectations had to be lower. Like with most beginners with no dance experience (myself included, in spades), they're very stiff, and that doesn't make for good routines.
But it still makes for a good show altogether. If you've never seen it, give it a try.
Meet Julianne Hough
Yeah, you wish. Julianne Hough isn't mere eye candy from head to toe, she's also an incredibly gifted ballroom dancer who's only 18 years old. You can see her on a video on her website here or you can watch "Dancing with the Stars".
But if you miss her, stay tuned. She wants to be an actress, and if she works as hard as she must have to achieve what she has at her age, you'll be seeing a lot more of her.
But if you miss her, stay tuned. She wants to be an actress, and if she works as hard as she must have to achieve what she has at her age, you'll be seeing a lot more of her.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Hiss story
Adolf Hitler has some kin in the US. Not surprisingly, they don't use the Hitler name. But we could yet see the day that they not only embrace it but stand up in public claiming he was framed.
Why not? The Hiss family hasn't given up on convicted Cold War spy Alger Hiss yet. And I wouldn't be surprised if relatives of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were still politicking too. Anyway, Powerline has much more on Hiss here.
Hiss was busted thanks to the late Whittaker Chambers, who earlier had spied for the Russians himself. But he broke with the Evil Empire after seeing it in action enough times, documenting his journey in his bestselling book "Witness". It's still worth a read over half a century after publication.
(Now Thomas Sowell has written another book, which in part documents his recovery from leftism. Mona Charen writes of it here.)
Yes, I'll kowtow to Godwin's law and acknowledge the obvious - Hiss was no Hitler. Or perhaps more appropriately, he was no Stalin. But he and his ilk were enablers, without whom such beasts could not attain power. And with tens of millions of deaths attributable to Communism, there's plenty of guilt to go around.
Why not? The Hiss family hasn't given up on convicted Cold War spy Alger Hiss yet. And I wouldn't be surprised if relatives of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were still politicking too. Anyway, Powerline has much more on Hiss here.
Hiss was busted thanks to the late Whittaker Chambers, who earlier had spied for the Russians himself. But he broke with the Evil Empire after seeing it in action enough times, documenting his journey in his bestselling book "Witness". It's still worth a read over half a century after publication.
(Now Thomas Sowell has written another book, which in part documents his recovery from leftism. Mona Charen writes of it here.)
Yes, I'll kowtow to Godwin's law and acknowledge the obvious - Hiss was no Hitler. Or perhaps more appropriately, he was no Stalin. But he and his ilk were enablers, without whom such beasts could not attain power. And with tens of millions of deaths attributable to Communism, there's plenty of guilt to go around.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Secular Sharia
Some of the dumbest people I know are atheists. If you really want to waste some time, try convincing one that their atheism is just as much an article of faith as anything a deist ever came up with. If you doubt that this is true of atheism, try proving that gods *don't* exist.
Of course deists have the same problem proving that gods *do* exist. But at least they admit that they have faith.
And at least religious people are usually humble. Not so the atheists. And few are quite as aggressive at trying to impose their views by law, all while denying that they have any faith at all.
Captain Ed has more to say here.
In closing, this agnostic wishes one and all a happy Easter. While the law still permits it...
Of course deists have the same problem proving that gods *do* exist. But at least they admit that they have faith.
And at least religious people are usually humble. Not so the atheists. And few are quite as aggressive at trying to impose their views by law, all while denying that they have any faith at all.
Captain Ed has more to say here.
In closing, this agnostic wishes one and all a happy Easter. While the law still permits it...
Friday, April 06, 2007
She learned from the master
Don Surber catches Hillary Clinton with a real whopper:
Then again, we have to consider that to the Dems, compromise means "do it my way".
True compromise might be what should be happening, but it wasn't exactly the Clinton modus operandi. Mr. Surber offers what may be the best example - the budget showdown in 1995:
So maybe the Republicans shouldn't have done things as they did? Well, a few years earlier a budget deadlock occurred between a Democratic Congress and then-President Ronald Reagan. Reagan could have shut down the govt but he didn't. I don't know what the Republicans were thinking, but in retrospect it sounds crazy to expect Bill Clinton to behave like his superior.
Sometime in that period Rush Limbaugh had a TV show. He had no end of fun showing montages of video clips of Bill Clinton speaking of balancing the budget in N years, where N was usually in the range of 5 to 11 years. Too bad we didn't have YouTube or Tivo back then.
Anyway, it's not as if balancing the budget had never been on Clinton's publicly stated agenda. But being the lying sack that he was and is, when time came to deliver he not only wouldn't but he shut down the govt over it. And being the infinitely brassy SOB that he was and is, he claimed credit for budget surpluses when they occurred a few years later under the Republican Congress despite his best efforts.
And all of this was done in front of and perhaps even per the advice or even the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton. So excuse me if I doubt her integrity, truthfulness and general worthiness to serve in any political capacity whatsoever.
“What has historically happened is that there has to be some negotiation and compromise. We may not get it, but I’m not ready to concede that. I saw a lot of what happened when my husband had a Republican Congress. We would stake out one position, they would stake out one position. And then people would begin to try to figure out how to narrow the difference. That’s what should be happening here.”
Then again, we have to consider that to the Dems, compromise means "do it my way".
True compromise might be what should be happening, but it wasn't exactly the Clinton modus operandi. Mr. Surber offers what may be the best example - the budget showdown in 1995:
WASHINGTON - President Clinton and his Republican antagonists are blaming each other for a pre-holiday federal shutdown, forced by yet another deadlock over the two sides’ budget-balancing priorities.Nine Cabinet departments and scores of other agencies technically ran out of money at midnight yesterday, hours after budget talks between the White House and congressional Republicans broke off in bitterness.
This quote is fairly evenhanded, but the coverage in general wasn't. Never mind the fact that the order to shut down Federal functions came from Clinton's staff, reflecting Clinton's explicit choice and initiative - the whole thing was presented by the press as if the govt shutdown were a calamity and Republicans were solely responsible for it.So maybe the Republicans shouldn't have done things as they did? Well, a few years earlier a budget deadlock occurred between a Democratic Congress and then-President Ronald Reagan. Reagan could have shut down the govt but he didn't. I don't know what the Republicans were thinking, but in retrospect it sounds crazy to expect Bill Clinton to behave like his superior.
Sometime in that period Rush Limbaugh had a TV show. He had no end of fun showing montages of video clips of Bill Clinton speaking of balancing the budget in N years, where N was usually in the range of 5 to 11 years. Too bad we didn't have YouTube or Tivo back then.
Anyway, it's not as if balancing the budget had never been on Clinton's publicly stated agenda. But being the lying sack that he was and is, when time came to deliver he not only wouldn't but he shut down the govt over it. And being the infinitely brassy SOB that he was and is, he claimed credit for budget surpluses when they occurred a few years later under the Republican Congress despite his best efforts.
And all of this was done in front of and perhaps even per the advice or even the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton. So excuse me if I doubt her integrity, truthfulness and general worthiness to serve in any political capacity whatsoever.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Instant credibility
Yes, you too can have it. How? Malign conservatives.
Neal Boortz says
"They say that men lived alongside dinosaurs? They're crazy to believe that!"
"They say the earth is flat? They're crazy to believe that!"
"They call themselves conservatives? Why would you question that?"
Neither conservatives nor liberals can control who's on their side of the barricades. And no amount of dissociation will eliminate the resulting slanders. In particular, liberals will slander opponents no matter what they do.
Neal Boortz says
Sadly ... many conservatives seem to have dedicated their lives to lending credence to the left's "conservatives are idiots" claim.
From his citations apparently the reasoning goes something like this:"They say that men lived alongside dinosaurs? They're crazy to believe that!"
"They say the earth is flat? They're crazy to believe that!"
"They call themselves conservatives? Why would you question that?"
Neither conservatives nor liberals can control who's on their side of the barricades. And no amount of dissociation will eliminate the resulting slanders. In particular, liberals will slander opponents no matter what they do.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Chlorine gas vs nuclear power plants
The depravity of our opponents in Iraq et al knows few bounds. They don't seem to be lacking in inspiration for new types of attacks, either. All the same, I'm sure that many of you avoid speculating about what *might* be done just in case some murderous creep is reading and hasn't thought of it already. I know that *I* do.
But long before Hezbollah and their ilk was Murphy, as in Murphy's Law. No one is more creative than he. He saves some of his most ingenious work for nuclear power plants, as we saw almost 30 years ago at Three Mile Island. And it so happens that nuclear power plants need to chlorinate their water too, so there's always some chlorine around. What if...?
First let me note that chlorine, even as bottled gas, isn't exactly exotic. Odds are that it has been used to chlorinate your water at some time in the past at least, and the industrial hygiene concerns and rules are well evolved - many people know how to work with the stuff safely. And your local fire departments/emergency responders ought to know where the stuff is in your community and how to deal with it in the case of an accident.
But what about nuclear power plants? Could it harm the staff or otherwise impair control of the site?
Ah, we're a step ahead of you. I've been out of the commercial nuclear power industry for a while, but I can tell you that something like 15-20 years ago a concern arose with the use of gaseous chlorine on nuclear power plant sites. At that time at least it was the cheapest way to chlorinate water on a large scale. But lest some gas should be released inadvertantly, nuclear power plants were ordered to get the gas cylinders offsite. I expect that by now all sites have implemented this. The plant I am most familiar with now uses a solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in water, which basically amounts to strong Clorox, to chlorinate their water. My guess is that most others do the same.
But that's not good enough - what if the creeps bring their own chlorine? Good point - the nuclear power industry has been concerned with that for years, and we're covered there too. You see, it's common to transport chlorine by rail in large quantities, and most nuclear power plant sites are close enough to railroad lines to need to be concerned with chlorine or whatever other toxic gases might be released in quantity nearby. So nuclear power plant control room ventilation systems have elaborate systems to detect the presence of gas and can responde automatically to protect the staff. And in case the control room should become uninhabitable even with Scott air packs (like what firemen use, and which are always present under Federal regulations for dealing with emergencies), there is another means for shutting down the plants safely, but I don't see the need for more detail right now.
What's more, US commercial nuclear power plants have communications systems with alarms that can be heard for miles, and other emergency response measures reinforced with federally monitored drills, preassigned duties and chains of command and other features too. You can bet that if the local nuke plant calls the sheriff, they'll answer the phone. If you live nearby, they know about it and have ways to evacuate you. Under non-nuclear emergency conditions, this civil defense apparatus would be available also (assuming there are no regulations against it).
US commercial nuclear power plants make lousy targets in any case. But that's another post.
But long before Hezbollah and their ilk was Murphy, as in Murphy's Law. No one is more creative than he. He saves some of his most ingenious work for nuclear power plants, as we saw almost 30 years ago at Three Mile Island. And it so happens that nuclear power plants need to chlorinate their water too, so there's always some chlorine around. What if...?
First let me note that chlorine, even as bottled gas, isn't exactly exotic. Odds are that it has been used to chlorinate your water at some time in the past at least, and the industrial hygiene concerns and rules are well evolved - many people know how to work with the stuff safely. And your local fire departments/emergency responders ought to know where the stuff is in your community and how to deal with it in the case of an accident.
But what about nuclear power plants? Could it harm the staff or otherwise impair control of the site?
Ah, we're a step ahead of you. I've been out of the commercial nuclear power industry for a while, but I can tell you that something like 15-20 years ago a concern arose with the use of gaseous chlorine on nuclear power plant sites. At that time at least it was the cheapest way to chlorinate water on a large scale. But lest some gas should be released inadvertantly, nuclear power plants were ordered to get the gas cylinders offsite. I expect that by now all sites have implemented this. The plant I am most familiar with now uses a solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in water, which basically amounts to strong Clorox, to chlorinate their water. My guess is that most others do the same.
But that's not good enough - what if the creeps bring their own chlorine? Good point - the nuclear power industry has been concerned with that for years, and we're covered there too. You see, it's common to transport chlorine by rail in large quantities, and most nuclear power plant sites are close enough to railroad lines to need to be concerned with chlorine or whatever other toxic gases might be released in quantity nearby. So nuclear power plant control room ventilation systems have elaborate systems to detect the presence of gas and can responde automatically to protect the staff. And in case the control room should become uninhabitable even with Scott air packs (like what firemen use, and which are always present under Federal regulations for dealing with emergencies), there is another means for shutting down the plants safely, but I don't see the need for more detail right now.
What's more, US commercial nuclear power plants have communications systems with alarms that can be heard for miles, and other emergency response measures reinforced with federally monitored drills, preassigned duties and chains of command and other features too. You can bet that if the local nuke plant calls the sheriff, they'll answer the phone. If you live nearby, they know about it and have ways to evacuate you. Under non-nuclear emergency conditions, this civil defense apparatus would be available also (assuming there are no regulations against it).
US commercial nuclear power plants make lousy targets in any case. But that's another post.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Better to have loved and lost?
You know the expression. One source traces it back to Alfred, Lord Tennyson, who may have cribbed it from St. Augustine.
But today it occurred to me upon hearing of the passing of Cathy Seipp, who left us this afternoon after 5 years of lung cancer. I never had the chance to meet her. But if her friends and their regard for her are in any way her measure then we've truly lost a treasure. Blessings to her daughter and the others who have lost far more than I.
But today it occurred to me upon hearing of the passing of Cathy Seipp, who left us this afternoon after 5 years of lung cancer. I never had the chance to meet her. But if her friends and their regard for her are in any way her measure then we've truly lost a treasure. Blessings to her daughter and the others who have lost far more than I.
What does it take to turn people into authoritarians?
The most annoying little kid I've ever run into always said "Why?" in response to anything anyone said. Inquisitiveness is fine, and if a kid is really interested in something he'll get as much of my time as I have. But this little pest really needed a chokechain. Mercifully he grew out of it. (I guess he would have had to escape it by the time he was a teen - by then he would have known everything and been telling all the rest of us "why").
Yeah, I suppose I'm getting older and crankier every year, and I'm either noticing things I didn't or reacting differently. Yet the world really has changed. Good grief, what kind of jerks have to sue a school district because they want to wear Tigger socks? Heaven forbid that she couldn't show "who she is" - the schools must be ruled by the whims of 14 year old girls and publicity-seeking attorneys.
I have a hint for you and your lawyer, sweetie. You won't be showing "who you are" until you stop wearing bottoms.
You might say that it's at least as silly to act as if permitting the changes would end civilization as we know it. If there were no need for any kind of dress code for schools I might agree, but this just shows that no matter what you might put in one, some jackass might take issue with it. Couldn't the judge who got this case sentence the girl to, say, write a twenty page single spaced report on good citizenship as opposed to being a narcissistic twit, and then to make a longhand copy of it for every one of her fellow students in the district?
Salespeople know that you want customers to say "yes". Crap like the above eventually forces us to start saying "no". And once we get started, the easier it becomes to be more restrictive. If we ever do become authoritarians, IMO it will have started in response to clowns like this who show no perspective or discretion.
Yeah, I suppose I'm getting older and crankier every year, and I'm either noticing things I didn't or reacting differently. Yet the world really has changed. Good grief, what kind of jerks have to sue a school district because they want to wear Tigger socks? Heaven forbid that she couldn't show "who she is" - the schools must be ruled by the whims of 14 year old girls and publicity-seeking attorneys.
I have a hint for you and your lawyer, sweetie. You won't be showing "who you are" until you stop wearing bottoms.
You might say that it's at least as silly to act as if permitting the changes would end civilization as we know it. If there were no need for any kind of dress code for schools I might agree, but this just shows that no matter what you might put in one, some jackass might take issue with it. Couldn't the judge who got this case sentence the girl to, say, write a twenty page single spaced report on good citizenship as opposed to being a narcissistic twit, and then to make a longhand copy of it for every one of her fellow students in the district?
Salespeople know that you want customers to say "yes". Crap like the above eventually forces us to start saying "no". And once we get started, the easier it becomes to be more restrictive. If we ever do become authoritarians, IMO it will have started in response to clowns like this who show no perspective or discretion.
Give 'em hell, George!
Which president was told by his father that it was a good thing that he wasn't born a girl, or else he'd have been knocked up all the time?
The answer?
Surprised? After recent events I'd think GWB would be the most popular guess. It might not be good policy to line up all the Dems in the House and Senate (and a few Reps too) and kick them all in the crotch, or to put Ann Coulter in charge of his PR, but he puts up with way too much crap without even a comment.
The answer?
Surprised? After recent events I'd think GWB would be the most popular guess. It might not be good policy to line up all the Dems in the House and Senate (and a few Reps too) and kick them all in the crotch, or to put Ann Coulter in charge of his PR, but he puts up with way too much crap without even a comment.
Another form of stupidity
An anti-smoking group called on the U.S. National Slavery Museum to return a donation from tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, saying the company targets children "for another form of slavery."
Just think - all those slaves ever had to do was break a habit. We had a war over that?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
But don't question their patriotism...
No, you can't stop me, and I'm sure you've heard it: Scientists are starting to use lawyers in medical experiments instead of rats. The lawyers are more numerous, the staff doesn't get attached to them, and there are things that rats won't do.
If the above were true I'd be advocating vivisection about now. If there is no basis in legal ethics for sanctioning lawyers who do stuff like this, than can we even claim that such ethics exist? Sheesh, can't we at least stop giving them a forum at law schools?
If the above were true I'd be advocating vivisection about now. If there is no basis in legal ethics for sanctioning lawyers who do stuff like this, than can we even claim that such ethics exist? Sheesh, can't we at least stop giving them a forum at law schools?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
This could be it...
It looks like Blogger wants to force me into the new, much-cussed version. Will it work? It looks like we'll find out shortly. In the meantime, it's been a great 5+ years.
Posts have been slowing down for some time. In part it's from being upstaged - my pet issue, nuclear power, is promoted more effectively than I could do it by Instapundit (which is a very good thing - sic 'em, Glenn!).
Incidentally, where did that 'No Watermelons Allowed' name come from?
There I was, impatient to start blogging and I was faced with a prompt for a name. I must have picked a dozen in a row that were taken. Now what?
Well, years ago I was an engineer in the nuclear power industry. I was raised during a time of ascendancy of environmental groups, so I shared their concerns, including those of nuclear power.
Yet my job experiences gave me confidence in the technology and the industry, so I became suspicious of other environmental claims. I found that there was another side, it wasn't malignant, and that it usually made a lot more sense.
Really now, how did environmentalism become a partisan issue? Don't we all want clean air, clean water, a sustainable biosystem, etc.? Never mind "global warming" - who wants to waste power or use up finite resources needlessly? How could an issue with such universal appeal ever become partisan? How screwed up is your approach when you can't sell conservation to conservatives?
Because lefties won't have it any other way. Given a choice between bipartisan progress or doing things their way, these nominal "progressives" oppose progress every time. They seize issues to promote lefty politics to the detriment of the original issue, like a virus turning an innocent cell into a source of further disease. They own the big environmental organizations lock stock and barrel. Accordingly, the late Warren Brookes called these phonies "watermelons" - green on the outside, but red on the inside.
So true environmentalists must take back their institutions from the left, or else create and defend new ones to marginalize the old. No Watermelons Allowed!
Hence the name. It's still weird, but at least it's unique, and without it I might still be sitting at that prompt thinking...
Posts have been slowing down for some time. In part it's from being upstaged - my pet issue, nuclear power, is promoted more effectively than I could do it by Instapundit (which is a very good thing - sic 'em, Glenn!).
Incidentally, where did that 'No Watermelons Allowed' name come from?
There I was, impatient to start blogging and I was faced with a prompt for a name. I must have picked a dozen in a row that were taken. Now what?
Well, years ago I was an engineer in the nuclear power industry. I was raised during a time of ascendancy of environmental groups, so I shared their concerns, including those of nuclear power.
Yet my job experiences gave me confidence in the technology and the industry, so I became suspicious of other environmental claims. I found that there was another side, it wasn't malignant, and that it usually made a lot more sense.
Really now, how did environmentalism become a partisan issue? Don't we all want clean air, clean water, a sustainable biosystem, etc.? Never mind "global warming" - who wants to waste power or use up finite resources needlessly? How could an issue with such universal appeal ever become partisan? How screwed up is your approach when you can't sell conservation to conservatives?
Because lefties won't have it any other way. Given a choice between bipartisan progress or doing things their way, these nominal "progressives" oppose progress every time. They seize issues to promote lefty politics to the detriment of the original issue, like a virus turning an innocent cell into a source of further disease. They own the big environmental organizations lock stock and barrel. Accordingly, the late Warren Brookes called these phonies "watermelons" - green on the outside, but red on the inside.
So true environmentalists must take back their institutions from the left, or else create and defend new ones to marginalize the old. No Watermelons Allowed!
Hence the name. It's still weird, but at least it's unique, and without it I might still be sitting at that prompt thinking...
That's Mistress Katharine to you, maggot!
Ever fantasized about an S&M session with a Hello Kitty theme? Look here
Monday, January 29, 2007
Then don't run
Having declared her candidacy only a few days ago, Hillary Clinton has already disqualified herself for the office (assuming she hadn't already).
All quotes from here
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush has made a mess of Iraq and it is his responsibility to "extricate" the United States from the situation before he leaves office.
It would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief, she said.
Certainly, if the next CinC is any Democrat we've seen running to date. Does that mean she wishes Bush would stick around for a third term? If she doesn't want to have to "extricate" the US all she has to do is stay home.It would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief, she said.
"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.
Of course an ill-conceived plan for a Democrat is to spend a dime on someone who can't vote for them, and Iraqis who aren't US citizens can't legally vote in the US (that's a privilege reserved for Mexicans only). Does this mean she agreed with the strategy?"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.
Does this mean that she'll be cooperating with him as he attempts to do so, by voting for his proposals for troop levels and spending?One questioner asked Clinton if her track record showed she could stand up to "evil men" around the world.
"The question is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men," Clinton said. She paused to gaze while the audience interrupted with about 30 seconds of laughter and applause.
That would be fine if Osama Bin Laden et al were mere lying sluts, and an acceptable response would be to stick around and take it so she could maintain her cushy situation. But at least she showed she's capable of making a joke."The question is, we face a lot of dangers in the world and, in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men and what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men," Clinton said. She paused to gaze while the audience interrupted with about 30 seconds of laughter and applause.
She told reporters that evil men included al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. "Isn't it about time we get serious about that?" she said.
By doing what, exactly? Invading Pakistan?All quotes from here
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Friday, December 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Imponderables
Why would anyone want to be a nurse? Can't they find better jobs? Or do they just like wiping up feces, sticking people with needles, and watching people die?
Why would anyone be a cop? Taking out the social garbage every day at risk of life and limb - there can't possibly be a socially acceptable reason for it. They must all be losers who can't find better jobs. Or maybe they're just sociopaths looking for people to lock up and shoot.
Why would anyone be a fireman? You run *out* of burning buildings, not *in* - obviously they're not very smart. I guess it gives them a chance to loot houses as the evidence crumbles and burns behind them, eh?
After hearing the kind of contemptible crap John Kerry and Charles Rangel have said about our military, why would anyone be a Democrat?
Monday, November 27, 2006
The world as your monitor
Yes, much of my life has been wasted. Part of that has been spent playing computer games like FreeCell. Far too laborious if done with actual playing cards, it's OK if a computer takes care of the scut work.
Stadium sports have always been designed to use a fixed pattern of marks on the field, whether they be boundaries, yard markers, hash marks, base paths, or whatever else. What kinds of new games might develop if the fields could change dynamically during play?
So have I found a new way to waste time? Maybe not - check out this article in Forbes:
I really need to get some work done.
Stadium sports have always been designed to use a fixed pattern of marks on the field, whether they be boundaries, yard markers, hash marks, base paths, or whatever else. What kinds of new games might develop if the fields could change dynamically during play?
So have I found a new way to waste time? Maybe not - check out this article in Forbes:
Imagine this: you pull in your driveway after a long day at the office, step out of your car, and suddenly your lawn, yes, your lawn, lights up with a "Welcome Home, Honey!" Or how about this: The military has a runway deep in enemy territory that it wants to keep from getting blown up, so it changes the color of the landing turf to brown to blend in with the surrounding desert. When a plane comes in for a landing, two strips of lights appear. After the plane has landed, with a push of a button the strip reverts to camouflage mode.
Sounds cool, right? This technology will be available soon, making its grand entrance as a National Football League field. Mark Nicholls, the founder and chief executive of Sportexe, the number two maker of artificial turf in the NFL, has patented the process of "tufting" fiber optics with blades of plastic grass. "We will be able to turn the football field into a giant Jumbotron," says Nicholls.
A field can display a huge American flag during the national anthem. At halftime a sponsor such as Budweiser could cover the field with its logo. During the game, that virtual first-down marker you see on your TV could now be on the field itself before the ball is snapped. And because sensors beneath the fibers can sense when any given blade's light is obscured, referees can track the footsteps of a player to determine if he was in-bounds or not. Stadium owners would welcome the technology as well, as it would help them get more use out of the field: A few mouse clicks is all it takes to change the field from a gridiron to a soccer pitch. Compare that to the 2.5-hour, $650 process of cleaning and repainting lines on today's artificial fields.
Hmm. Maybe one day we'll be able to, say, sell our roofs to an advertiser, who would assume permanent maintenance responsibilities in return for a billboard he could control from half a world away. Billboards could become big TV monitors. Highways could restripe. Large objects could change color instantly - they could even become invisible. Sheesh, you could redecorate the house ten times a day.Sounds cool, right? This technology will be available soon, making its grand entrance as a National Football League field. Mark Nicholls, the founder and chief executive of Sportexe, the number two maker of artificial turf in the NFL, has patented the process of "tufting" fiber optics with blades of plastic grass. "We will be able to turn the football field into a giant Jumbotron," says Nicholls.
A field can display a huge American flag during the national anthem. At halftime a sponsor such as Budweiser could cover the field with its logo. During the game, that virtual first-down marker you see on your TV could now be on the field itself before the ball is snapped. And because sensors beneath the fibers can sense when any given blade's light is obscured, referees can track the footsteps of a player to determine if he was in-bounds or not. Stadium owners would welcome the technology as well, as it would help them get more use out of the field: A few mouse clicks is all it takes to change the field from a gridiron to a soccer pitch. Compare that to the 2.5-hour, $650 process of cleaning and repainting lines on today's artificial fields.
I really need to get some work done.
Home is where the harm is
When a certain family rugrat was small I caught her playing by a toilet. Her mother thought me paranoid when I told her of the kids who died each year from pitching in headfirst and drowning.
In fact, it can even happen in a bucket. The kids are so topheavy that if they go in head first and there's enough water in the bowl, that's it - they're not likely to be able to get themselves out. They won't even be able to scream for help. And Mom would only have to be out of the room for a couple of minutes...
And now we read this. At least it wasn't a toilet, but this would be worse. With a little imagination it becomes Poe-like - slowly getting wedged in a little farther with every exhalation, possibly over hours, until breathing became impossible.
Maybe I've been scarred by my nuclear power days, which I spent mostly looking for things that could go wrong and what could be done about them. Or maybe it's remembering a house that I lived in as a kid - the heater that always made my mother nervous while we lived there eventually started a fire that burned it to the ground. But the fact is that this is the time of year that lots of people die at home in ways they probably never gave a second thought to.
In fact, it can even happen in a bucket. The kids are so topheavy that if they go in head first and there's enough water in the bowl, that's it - they're not likely to be able to get themselves out. They won't even be able to scream for help. And Mom would only have to be out of the room for a couple of minutes...
And now we read this. At least it wasn't a toilet, but this would be worse. With a little imagination it becomes Poe-like - slowly getting wedged in a little farther with every exhalation, possibly over hours, until breathing became impossible.
Maybe I've been scarred by my nuclear power days, which I spent mostly looking for things that could go wrong and what could be done about them. Or maybe it's remembering a house that I lived in as a kid - the heater that always made my mother nervous while we lived there eventually started a fire that burned it to the ground. But the fact is that this is the time of year that lots of people die at home in ways they probably never gave a second thought to.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Has OJ found the "real killer" at last?
Could it have been his ghostwriter? Hey, I'm not making this up.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Objectivity AP style
From here:
Do the usual suspects (ACU, ADA..) or anyone else rate newspapers for objectivity? Is lack of objectivity in reporting considered an ethical lapse among journalists?
The bloodshed underlined the impotence of the Iraqi army and police to quell determined sectarian extremists at a time when the Bush administration appears to be considering a move to accelerate the hand-over of security responsibilities.
It must not take too many brains to become a journalist if they needn't be able to distinguish between, say, failing and being a failure. They may ultimately be right in this case, but this article isn't enough to prove it. Did they just screw up this once, or are they incompetent and/or biased?Do the usual suspects (ACU, ADA..) or anyone else rate newspapers for objectivity? Is lack of objectivity in reporting considered an ethical lapse among journalists?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Crumbs from the table
!@#$! Colby Cosh, the Canuckistani. *Just try* to link to one of his posts. It'd be different if his blog stunk, but it's one of my favorites, and every trip seems to generate a couple of linkworthy items. So let's see how long it takes before this link rots.
Anyway, yes, I know that the great Milton Friedman is dead. I didn't acknowledge it until now only because I had no idea what I could add. But CC came up with a story I hadn't heard before, showing how some people could have made an impressive career out of stuff Milton Friedman probably didn't even include on his CV.
Anyway, yes, I know that the great Milton Friedman is dead. I didn't acknowledge it until now only because I had no idea what I could add. But CC came up with a story I hadn't heard before, showing how some people could have made an impressive career out of stuff Milton Friedman probably didn't even include on his CV.
Driving a truck isn't what it used to be
There were some truckers in my family, and in younger years I'd ride with them once in a while. If nothing else, I learned that I didn't want to be a trucker.
But it's getting more livable out there. I still don't want to be a trucker, but nowadays it might take a couple more weeks longer before I lost my mind.
But it's getting more livable out there. I still don't want to be a trucker, but nowadays it might take a couple more weeks longer before I lost my mind.
An interesting perspective on Iran
Quoth Spengler:That's just the most eye-catching part - it's all worth a look.
I don't recall where I found this, but a good bet was in the comments on Austin Bay's blog. It's always worth a look anyway.
I don't recall where I found this, but a good bet was in the comments on Austin Bay's blog. It's always worth a look anyway.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Time to invest in micro CHP?
Maybe. But first it would be nice to know what it is.
CHP is "combined heat and power". It's really old news in industrial settings that use a lot of heat and power, but the typical implementations require lots of capital, space and skilled attention. And the proportions of heat and power are essentially fixed - one or the other will be either supplemented or wasted to match the actual demands.
Micro-CHP is an prepackaged implementation, like an appliance, designed for residential application. See this for an example.
Why buy it? You can generate your own heat and power for prices comparable to that for heat alone using readily available gas. And although the systems are not available yet, around 2007 they should be available as residential backup power systems.
Drawbacks: capital costs mean you'll wait a while for your full payback. And it still uses fossil fuels.
Electric utilities have mixed emotions about these devices. To understand why it helps to recognize a couple of things about the power business.
It's the peaks in load that are expensive to service - power generating companies must have the capacity to service it yet they can only use this capacity at peaks, which means high costs. Imagine if you could get by with a Beetle 99% of the time, but the rest of the time you might have to drive into a swamp or need to travel over 100 MPH, so you had to have a Land Rover and a Maserati on standby. It might be fun, but it's not something you make money with.
And these higher costs can be exacerbated when power distribution companies are forced to bid against each other for power during the very highest peaks. In severe cases businesses will shut down deliberately to reduce load, which of course is an economic hit to the business and community. At the worst there will be blackouts when utilities find themselves incapable of delivering power.
In short, electric utilities want to mitigate peak demands when they can. Micro-CHP can help if the peak demand is in heating season.
In cooling season? The heat must be rejected somewhere, which both adds capital costs and reduces the usable energy output for a given input. Under exceptional circumstances this might be worthwhile, but I wouldn't expect much of this.
Anyway, this might be the Next Big Thing, if only for the kind of people who like to buy hybrid cars nowadays. And it shows potential to do much more. Check out more here.
CHP is "combined heat and power". It's really old news in industrial settings that use a lot of heat and power, but the typical implementations require lots of capital, space and skilled attention. And the proportions of heat and power are essentially fixed - one or the other will be either supplemented or wasted to match the actual demands.
Micro-CHP is an prepackaged implementation, like an appliance, designed for residential application. See this for an example.
Why buy it? You can generate your own heat and power for prices comparable to that for heat alone using readily available gas. And although the systems are not available yet, around 2007 they should be available as residential backup power systems.
Drawbacks: capital costs mean you'll wait a while for your full payback. And it still uses fossil fuels.
Electric utilities have mixed emotions about these devices. To understand why it helps to recognize a couple of things about the power business.
It's the peaks in load that are expensive to service - power generating companies must have the capacity to service it yet they can only use this capacity at peaks, which means high costs. Imagine if you could get by with a Beetle 99% of the time, but the rest of the time you might have to drive into a swamp or need to travel over 100 MPH, so you had to have a Land Rover and a Maserati on standby. It might be fun, but it's not something you make money with.
And these higher costs can be exacerbated when power distribution companies are forced to bid against each other for power during the very highest peaks. In severe cases businesses will shut down deliberately to reduce load, which of course is an economic hit to the business and community. At the worst there will be blackouts when utilities find themselves incapable of delivering power.
In short, electric utilities want to mitigate peak demands when they can. Micro-CHP can help if the peak demand is in heating season.
In cooling season? The heat must be rejected somewhere, which both adds capital costs and reduces the usable energy output for a given input. Under exceptional circumstances this might be worthwhile, but I wouldn't expect much of this.
Anyway, this might be the Next Big Thing, if only for the kind of people who like to buy hybrid cars nowadays. And it shows potential to do much more. Check out more here.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Remedial manners training
Jimmy K offers some advice.
As for the creep from the library, I say that as long as he's still lipping off, he could use another zap from the taser. Maybe if he sees enough stars he'll realize the universe doesn't revolve around his sorry butt.
As for the creep from the library, I say that as long as he's still lipping off, he could use another zap from the taser. Maybe if he sees enough stars he'll realize the universe doesn't revolve around his sorry butt.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
If you like "Dancing with the Stars"....
...why not get a dose of the real thing? One of the premier competitions in the world is in progress right now in Columbus, Ohio - the Ohio Star Ball.
Here you'll see competitive dancing as it's really done. Notice how the women get the short end of the stick on "Dancing with the Stars"? In a real competition, amateur women don't compete against amateur men. And they shouldn't because there are two distinct, not totally commensurable roles.
And of course on DWTS one couple has the entire floor to themselves, with music they've been practicing to. In the real world you don't know what will be played, and you'll have many other couples sharing the floor at the same time. Even among the top pros, collisions and near-misses happen, and how people deal with that ("floorcraft") is an important measure of their talent and composure.
If this sounds interesting, then be ready to go to downtown Columbus on Friday or Saturday. The pros, like local heroes Jesse DeSoto and professional partner Jackie Josephs, will be competing around that time. If Jesse sounds familiar, he's the poor guy who had to carry that heavy load called Shanna Moakler in the most recent DWTS.
Actually there is plenty of competition on other days too - it actually started on Tuesday. Most of this is "pro-am" - a professional teacher with a student. This is the minor leagues where you find guys like me, dancing to shorter passages on smaller floors through countless heats. But somewhere out there you'll find tomorrow's champs.
The pros really earn their money in the pro-am events. Some like Jim Maranto will have many advanced students there doing countless dances and heats. A couple of years ago I asked one particularly busy pro how many times he'd been on the floor and he said it was on the order of 400 times. When you consider that this was with different students doing different routines in different dances at different levels, each with their own unique restrictions, it's quite a feat of stamina and concentration.
Can't make it? You'll get another shot - once again PBS will be there recording, and the show will be broadcast sometime later as "America's Ballroom Challenge" or something like that.
Here you'll see competitive dancing as it's really done. Notice how the women get the short end of the stick on "Dancing with the Stars"? In a real competition, amateur women don't compete against amateur men. And they shouldn't because there are two distinct, not totally commensurable roles.
And of course on DWTS one couple has the entire floor to themselves, with music they've been practicing to. In the real world you don't know what will be played, and you'll have many other couples sharing the floor at the same time. Even among the top pros, collisions and near-misses happen, and how people deal with that ("floorcraft") is an important measure of their talent and composure.
If this sounds interesting, then be ready to go to downtown Columbus on Friday or Saturday. The pros, like local heroes Jesse DeSoto and professional partner Jackie Josephs, will be competing around that time. If Jesse sounds familiar, he's the poor guy who had to carry that heavy load called Shanna Moakler in the most recent DWTS.
Actually there is plenty of competition on other days too - it actually started on Tuesday. Most of this is "pro-am" - a professional teacher with a student. This is the minor leagues where you find guys like me, dancing to shorter passages on smaller floors through countless heats. But somewhere out there you'll find tomorrow's champs.
The pros really earn their money in the pro-am events. Some like Jim Maranto will have many advanced students there doing countless dances and heats. A couple of years ago I asked one particularly busy pro how many times he'd been on the floor and he said it was on the order of 400 times. When you consider that this was with different students doing different routines in different dances at different levels, each with their own unique restrictions, it's quite a feat of stamina and concentration.
Can't make it? You'll get another shot - once again PBS will be there recording, and the show will be broadcast sometime later as "America's Ballroom Challenge" or something like that.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Congratulations
...to the Democrats for their newfound position. Isn't it amazing what happens when the focus shifts from bitching about chads to finding better candidates?
Now let's see if they use this power for the benefit of themselves or for that of the country. With the likes of Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, Rangel and previously impeached judge Alcee Hastings in line for committee chairs, it doesn't look good.
But it could be fun to watch. In particular, I'm waiting for Rangel to call for a draft again. And how long can it be before Conyers starts his impeachment nonsense?
One thing for sure - the tone of the news will change.
Now let's see if they use this power for the benefit of themselves or for that of the country. With the likes of Conyers, Waxman, Leahy, Rangel and previously impeached judge Alcee Hastings in line for committee chairs, it doesn't look good.
But it could be fun to watch. In particular, I'm waiting for Rangel to call for a draft again. And how long can it be before Conyers starts his impeachment nonsense?
One thing for sure - the tone of the news will change.
Salute
Donald Rumsfeld is a fine man who did an admirable job as Secretary of Defense.
This is a sincere complement, but I can't match that of his opponents, whose rabidity was a constant reminder that he was doing well.
This is a sincere complement, but I can't match that of his opponents, whose rabidity was a constant reminder that he was doing well.
This woman needs to lose her job
Is she saying that the University of Michigan was no good before it started its diversity kick?
Monday, November 06, 2006
Hotel owners busted as identity thieves
This ought to warm the hearts of travelers everywhere, especially if they're using their own credit cards. And although we're talking local owners so far, at least two of the motels busted were Holiday Inns. More here.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Why are liberals so against violence?
Because they so often deserve it, like Larry Elder shows here.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Good issue gone bad
Glenn Reynolds links to an item on Daily Kos here, noting the plight of some Bulgarian and Palestinian health professionals in Libya. IMO this provides a terrific example of partisan politics fouling up an otherwise universal cause.
It seems that the health professionals were working in Libya when an outbreak of HIV among children occurred. I'm not a health pro, but my first guess would be that someone compromised on hygiene wrt medical instruments, blood screening, blood storage, or reusing syringes.
Consciously or not, her choice is clear - she wants the issue, even if it costs lives. She signals this in several ways.
First, she focuses on torture, denying the possibility that torture could produce anything useful. Whether that is true or not, it's not clear that it's relevant because the same Libyan court denied testimony from Luc Montagnier about HIV (it appears that the infected children already had HIV before the defendants even arrived in Libya). Being a lefty, she's incapable of criticizing a totalitarian govt that is not an ally of the US, so she has nothing more to say about Libyan justice or govt. Sorry sweetie, but IMO it's clear that the fix was in - someone high up in Libya is covering his ass, and there would have been confessions as a fig leaf if only by forgery or deception.
Of course, she drags in the fact that Libya has oil, This is a total non-sequitur to anyone but a lefty, Does she *really* think this influences press coverage?
She proclaims "Healthcare is a disaster in the United States", Beyond being a non-sequitur, only a lefty could proclaim something so asinine. After all, she notes that we don't reuse needles over here as they do all over Africa and elsewhere for lack of resources - just what word does she use for those other places? And as she noted, Libya has oil - if they can't afford more needles, who can?
She notes a Clinton initiative for health in Africa without even acknowledging Bush's health initiatives in Africa. Alas! - Bush's initiatives are mostly for malaria. To a lefty, it's always about sex - they might want to sleep with Africans, but they're not likely to live in Africa, so spending on localized, nonvenereal killers like malaria is a waste of money. And anything good that might happened has to be credited to lefties.
Yep, I'm being at least as tendentious as she is, but only to serve my point, which is 1) she loaded her message with irrelevant partisan BS, and 2) this does not serve the cause she claims to embrace. Why not simply state that the 6 foreign professionals in Libya are in danger of being executed for something that evidence shows they couldn't have done?
Universal issues need universal statements. We have environmentalism as an example of an issue with universal appeal that has been poisoned because lefties insist on defining the issues and controlling the responses. Let's not let it happen again.
It seems that the health professionals were working in Libya when an outbreak of HIV among children occurred. I'm not a health pro, but my first guess would be that someone compromised on hygiene wrt medical instruments, blood screening, blood storage, or reusing syringes.
In a nutshell, and I mean a true nutshell, for those of you not familiar, the case involves five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who have been wrongfully charged for allegedly infecting children with HIV. They were tortured and forced to sign "confessions" written in Arabic they did not understand now they are awaiting execution by firing squad in Libya . In fact, the poor hygiene, dirty needles and bad practices in the hospital are to blame.
Now the writer ought to consider whether she wants universal support or if she just wants to appeal to lefties. That is, does she want a solution or an issue?Consciously or not, her choice is clear - she wants the issue, even if it costs lives. She signals this in several ways.
First, she focuses on torture, denying the possibility that torture could produce anything useful. Whether that is true or not, it's not clear that it's relevant because the same Libyan court denied testimony from Luc Montagnier about HIV (it appears that the infected children already had HIV before the defendants even arrived in Libya). Being a lefty, she's incapable of criticizing a totalitarian govt that is not an ally of the US, so she has nothing more to say about Libyan justice or govt. Sorry sweetie, but IMO it's clear that the fix was in - someone high up in Libya is covering his ass, and there would have been confessions as a fig leaf if only by forgery or deception.
Of course, she drags in the fact that Libya has oil, This is a total non-sequitur to anyone but a lefty, Does she *really* think this influences press coverage?
She proclaims "Healthcare is a disaster in the United States", Beyond being a non-sequitur, only a lefty could proclaim something so asinine. After all, she notes that we don't reuse needles over here as they do all over Africa and elsewhere for lack of resources - just what word does she use for those other places? And as she noted, Libya has oil - if they can't afford more needles, who can?
She notes a Clinton initiative for health in Africa without even acknowledging Bush's health initiatives in Africa. Alas! - Bush's initiatives are mostly for malaria. To a lefty, it's always about sex - they might want to sleep with Africans, but they're not likely to live in Africa, so spending on localized, nonvenereal killers like malaria is a waste of money. And anything good that might happened has to be credited to lefties.
Yep, I'm being at least as tendentious as she is, but only to serve my point, which is 1) she loaded her message with irrelevant partisan BS, and 2) this does not serve the cause she claims to embrace. Why not simply state that the 6 foreign professionals in Libya are in danger of being executed for something that evidence shows they couldn't have done?
Universal issues need universal statements. We have environmentalism as an example of an issue with universal appeal that has been poisoned because lefties insist on defining the issues and controlling the responses. Let's not let it happen again.
We still don't have a stupidity vaccine
There are countless expressions and stories about what happens to critical thinking abilities during sexual arousal. I don't know what Cathy Seipp was doing when she wrote this article, but this time at least the "religious fanatics" are thinking more clearly than she.
Ms. Seipp writes
Ms. Seipp is smart and presumably raised a smart daughter who won't, um, park the RV in the wrong part of town so to speak. But other mothers and daughters are not so blessed, and what works for the Seipps might not make a good universal prescription. In any case, it doesn't call for a gratuitous slam against "religious fanatics".
Look, I'm a Cathy Seipp fan and I hope she makes a full recovery soon. But if I settled for stuff like this I'd be a Democrat.
Ms. Seipp writes
An anti-STD vaccine no more encourages promiscuity than locking your doors at night encourages burglars.
OK, odds are that she doesn't live in an RV. Most people can't move their homes to less secure neighborhoods. But people can incur more risk of STDs and might well do so if convinced that they were no less safe than before. And even if vaccines were 100% effective they would only work on one of the numerous STDs out there, and never mind pregnancy.Ms. Seipp is smart and presumably raised a smart daughter who won't, um, park the RV in the wrong part of town so to speak. But other mothers and daughters are not so blessed, and what works for the Seipps might not make a good universal prescription. In any case, it doesn't call for a gratuitous slam against "religious fanatics".
Look, I'm a Cathy Seipp fan and I hope she makes a full recovery soon. But if I settled for stuff like this I'd be a Democrat.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Ichthyometers
My hometown had a small river that was muddy as can be. It wasn't known for its "diversity" - legend had it that there were some catfish in there, but usually all you'd ever catch were carp, suckers, crawdads and bluegills.
It seems odd that something that could live in that mud could be sensitive, but apparently that is true of the bluegill. In fact, nowadays they're being used to detect toxins in drinking water.
At least this time it's deliberate. Anybody who set foot near Lake Michigan in Chicago in the late 60's can tell you that the fish were telling us something.
It seems odd that something that could live in that mud could be sensitive, but apparently that is true of the bluegill. In fact, nowadays they're being used to detect toxins in drinking water.
At least this time it's deliberate. Anybody who set foot near Lake Michigan in Chicago in the late 60's can tell you that the fish were telling us something.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Because you want to know
Want to see some science on TV? Try the Food Network.
No, I'm not talking about Alton Brown (this time, anyway). This tiime it's the "Ham on the Street" program, checking to see if wintergreen lifesavers really did emit sparks when bitten.
Yes, they do.
The explanation that was offered said that about any sugar candy would emit ultraviolet radiation when crushed. But wintergreen shows visible light because the UV is absorbed by the methyl salicylate that provides the flavor, and in turn the MS emits a faint visible light.
To cap off the demonstration, host George Duran put a bunch of wintergreen LifeSavers in a food processor in a dark room. By Jove, you could see the sparks fairly clearly, if dimly.
Incidentally, if you should ever be in an industrial setting and you smell wintergreen, you'd probably better head for the exit. Like the mercaptan that they add to natural gas so you can smell it, wintergreen has been used in carbon dioxide (CO2) fire suppression systems to tell you the system has been discharged. And if the fire doesn't get you, the CO2 will.
No, I'm not talking about Alton Brown (this time, anyway). This tiime it's the "Ham on the Street" program, checking to see if wintergreen lifesavers really did emit sparks when bitten.
Yes, they do.
The explanation that was offered said that about any sugar candy would emit ultraviolet radiation when crushed. But wintergreen shows visible light because the UV is absorbed by the methyl salicylate that provides the flavor, and in turn the MS emits a faint visible light.
To cap off the demonstration, host George Duran put a bunch of wintergreen LifeSavers in a food processor in a dark room. By Jove, you could see the sparks fairly clearly, if dimly.
Incidentally, if you should ever be in an industrial setting and you smell wintergreen, you'd probably better head for the exit. Like the mercaptan that they add to natural gas so you can smell it, wintergreen has been used in carbon dioxide (CO2) fire suppression systems to tell you the system has been discharged. And if the fire doesn't get you, the CO2 will.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Finding our place
We are advised to accept Iran as an established nuclear state.
If they're like this already, then what will they be like when they actually *have* nuclear weapons and a way to deliver them?
Note to the Iranians - if you really want that big conflagration to bring about the 12th Imam, maybe you ought to go nuking the Russians and/or Chinese first. They won't waste any time asking "why do they hate us?" before they glaze Tehran.
If they're like this already, then what will they be like when they actually *have* nuclear weapons and a way to deliver them?
Note to the Iranians - if you really want that big conflagration to bring about the 12th Imam, maybe you ought to go nuking the Russians and/or Chinese first. They won't waste any time asking "why do they hate us?" before they glaze Tehran.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Unscientific poll
A relative just had a baby in a small hospital in IL. They have a website with a "newborn gallery" where the first names of the babies and parents are listed.
In seven cases only the mother's name was listed. And in six of those, the baby was a girl.
I thought I'd heard somewhere that fathers were more likely to stick around if they had a son. Maybe that's what is going on here.
In seven cases only the mother's name was listed. And in six of those, the baby was a girl.
I thought I'd heard somewhere that fathers were more likely to stick around if they had a son. Maybe that's what is going on here.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Reality and Hollywood - a convergence at last?
Instapundit cites this article about an ad some Hollywood people are taking out in the LA Times that is against terrorism, specifically mentioning Hezbollah and Hamas. (Presumably Nicole Kidman is featured because she's Australian and the paper is Australian).
Well hot diggity dog, could reality be sinking in out there? We'll see. The first bite of crow is always the worst, but there's plenty more to go around.
According to the article, two of the undersigned are Sumner Redstone and Haim Saban. They also happen to be two of the biggest Democrat donors around. Talk is cheap - let's see what they do with their donations now. Because whatever else might be said about Democrats, they're not facilitating efforts against Islamofascism.
Well hot diggity dog, could reality be sinking in out there? We'll see. The first bite of crow is always the worst, but there's plenty more to go around.
According to the article, two of the undersigned are Sumner Redstone and Haim Saban. They also happen to be two of the biggest Democrat donors around. Talk is cheap - let's see what they do with their donations now. Because whatever else might be said about Democrats, they're not facilitating efforts against Islamofascism.
Monday, August 14, 2006
A schoolhouse of Davids?
It's hard to go wrong with Stuart Buck's blog, which always has a number of interesting posts. But this one made me think.
In it we heard the typical lament of "teaching to the test". That's only a problem if a) the test is lousy, or b) you resent the idea of having your performance measured, as education establishment personnel always seem to do.
It's not that they have no case at all - you sure can't test everything with true/falses, multiple choice, or the various other types of questions you can grade with a computer. We still need the kinds of insights that only human brains can provide. And to keep the system honest, we need this input from outsiders.
And nowadays we have cheap telecommunications and plenty of people with the skills needed to provide the kind of grading we need (seniors, perhaps). Could such testing be outsourced?
In it we heard the typical lament of "teaching to the test". That's only a problem if a) the test is lousy, or b) you resent the idea of having your performance measured, as education establishment personnel always seem to do.
It's not that they have no case at all - you sure can't test everything with true/falses, multiple choice, or the various other types of questions you can grade with a computer. We still need the kinds of insights that only human brains can provide. And to keep the system honest, we need this input from outsiders.
And nowadays we have cheap telecommunications and plenty of people with the skills needed to provide the kind of grading we need (seniors, perhaps). Could such testing be outsourced?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Finish the story!
Headline: Bush sought to cut $6M in screening technology. Why, on it's face it must be an outrage, right?
That's a tempting conclusion. But we aren't told exactly what the $6M was for, nor where it was redirected. In particular, I want to know if it was taken from research in *liquid* explosives detection.
You can bet your sweet patootie that we wouldn't have heard a peep about this but for the latest events in the UK. Instead we might be hearing "why are we spending all this money on explosives detection technology? It's been years since the terrorists blew up a plane, and our boys need more body armor!" or whatever last captured the critics' imaginations.
So I'm not prepared to make this out as if it shows that the Bush administration is screwing up. Give us the rest of the story first. Given the media's persistent bias against Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if the *whole* truth sounded a lot more innocent.
That's a tempting conclusion. But we aren't told exactly what the $6M was for, nor where it was redirected. In particular, I want to know if it was taken from research in *liquid* explosives detection.
You can bet your sweet patootie that we wouldn't have heard a peep about this but for the latest events in the UK. Instead we might be hearing "why are we spending all this money on explosives detection technology? It's been years since the terrorists blew up a plane, and our boys need more body armor!" or whatever last captured the critics' imaginations.
So I'm not prepared to make this out as if it shows that the Bush administration is screwing up. Give us the rest of the story first. Given the media's persistent bias against Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if the *whole* truth sounded a lot more innocent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)