Monday, June 29, 2015


For those times I need some.

Natalie Dormer Fencing

The rest of the photo's are mere distraction.

Did I say mere?


A Questionable Technology Question

I wonder if it would be practically possible (as opposed to theoretically, you understand) to build a yacht (something like one of these Austal 41 catamarans) that used a modification of the Sheerwind electrical power generation system to supply principal motive and operations power?  Yes, you would definitely want a diesel back-up generator and sufficient fuel stores for ~10 days max load operations.  Maybe (who am I kidding, almost certainly) a battery storage system too.  A fresh water desalination capability along with a grey/black water reclamation system, of course.  In fact, pretty much every technology you would want in an ocean-going yacht that you can shoehorn into the available volume, just like pretty much every other ship design.  The object here is to have a "fuel" system that uses less interior hull volume than the existing traditional diesel fuel design for that same model of vessel does now.

The wind generator would require a redesigned blade system, for only one major change.  The captured wind would have to be routed down to the engineering spaces (the pontoons), presumably through some sort of funnel-type structure extending well above the uppermost deck area, and then exhausted well away from any working deck areas, antennas, small craft hoisting equipment and most emphatically not anywhere near the waterline (whatever the sea state).  Depending on how the air ducting was laid out, it ought to be quite possible to spin up a series of smaller generators from the same given volume of air with sufficient wind velocity.  From the Sheerwind site, it would appear that a boat traveling fast enough to supply about 8 knots of wind down the deck would be more than sufficient (which is a fairly normal wind state when tied up in port).  A twin ducting system branching port and starboard from a mid-ships wind collection tower could supply a series of generators placed within the system essentially twice the length of the boat if the ducting was routed forward the length of the pontoons and then up again to the uppermost decking and then aft to exhaust through a parallel array of exhaust ports facing aft (and thus two decks above the main after deck).

Performance wise, I think a boat that could cruise at ~18 knots and sprint at ~30+ knots would be more than sufficient for a non-commercial/non-military vessel.  This would allow for a 24-hour day cruise distance of roughly 400 nautical miles.  Assuming an on-board food stores capacity for 15 days fresh and 30 days re-constituted (powdered drinks, dehydrated proteins and carbs, etc) a non-stop voyage of 20 to 30 days duration without having to budget for fuel resupply would shift yachting a good deal closer to being more of a middle class aspiration, I would think.  A boat that didn't require shore-based fuel or power connections in port would be a big financial savings too.

I think I'll contact Sheerwind and Austal USA and ask them what they think.

Update #1: When considering redesign of the wind generators, do consider some recent research that appears to have some relevance to performance improvement.  Excerpt: "Because wind turbines are heavily braked in order to minimize noise, the addition of this new surface would mean that they could be run at much higher speeds producing more energy while making less noise. For an average-sized wind farm, this should mean several additional megawatts worth of electricity. An investigation into how owls fly and hunt in silence has enabled researchers to develop a prototype coating for wind turbine blades that could significantly reduce the amount of noise they make. - See more at:".

Friday, June 12, 2015

Casus Belli?

Since the PRC government now apparently owns all USA government data, to include SSN data, when can we expect a claim to be filed against the PRC to provide full funding for SSA payments?

Monday, April 20, 2015

Coming Up For Air -or- What's That Smell?

I haven't given up on writing entirely, I'm just maligning language elsewhere is all.

A couple of semi-related news items jarred my tentative thinking process recently.  One being the reporting regarding the recent vote(s) in the Texas legislature on gun carrying by non-law enforcement-type citizens in the state.

Let me just say this about that; it probably actually is possible to make your disdain for your audience more plain, but the below-quoted double error (from the opening sentence no less) written by one Nathan Kopple for The Wall Street Journal (and seemingly quoted verbatim by and Fox News) does seem to set that bar well up there:
Texas is poised to become the largest state in the U.S. to allow citizens to openly carry handguns, a change long sought by gun-rights activists.
Taking* my objections in the order of their presentation: 

(1) Alaska 


(2) Alaska you moron errr, Mr. Kopple.

[and in rebuttal to the obvious first quibble, (1) could alternatively be California.  No matter how you slice it, this account has nowhere to go but up]

Calling into question my own sense of cynicism, The Dallas Morning News at least managed to avoid those obvious hallmarks of journalistic excellence flubs.  The law enforcement devil is in the details, of course; we'll see how the actual law is written before I get out either one of my nice new holsters.

A question has arisen in my mind recently about 2nd Amendment civil rights debates more generally. It has become a 21st century axiom among modern 2nd Amendment civil rights supporters (to include myself) that more guns = less crime, and I've certainly been willing to advance that contention as thoroughly well proved.  But I do have to wonder of late ...

In years past, US gun legislation debates often referenced British crime reporting statistics on gun-related questions - more pertinently, the degree of doubt in the reliability of crime statistics from the UK. The questions thus raised were put to telling effect in the dismissal of these "facts" as to their relevance in US legislative debate over the last decade+.

My concern on this matter was (completely inadvertently, I'm certain) summarized quite brilliantly by this Joe Huffman blog post because of what I have discovered in my reading elsewhere recently about US crime reporting. The US DoJ's Uniform Crime Statistics are this country's national summation of all local and state crime reporting, as broken down by a variety of categories. There have been reports for many years now about US national crime statistics not reflecting actual events:
Racial violence might be up. It might be down. Either way we may never know: A new study from the Department of Justice says victims of violent crime often do not call the police.
And if they do, police often do not file crime reports, say local newspapers around the country.
“More than half of the nation’s violent crimes, or nearly 3.4 million violent victimizations per year, went unreported to the police between 2006 and 2010,” said a Justice Department analysis.
That’s 17 million violent crimes off the books in five years.


Bearing that in mind, the ramifications of this article gives me pause:
Campus crime is easier to track than city crime because campus cops have to obey federal reporting laws -- and the Clery Act requires schools to list the full description of the suspects. And make that available at the school web site.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If it is fair of us to say that questionable statistics must be given no credence in making legislative decisions regarding the expression of our civil rights here in the USA, and we now seem to have more than ample evidence that our own national crime reporting statistics are at-best "questionable", what are we really basing our axiomatic civil rights claims on?

I confess I do not know what to make of all of this as of yet.  I leave it for now with my fellow citizens to begin the process whereby we have traditionally made such choices (and all of you please refrain from throwing things at each other, at least until I can take part rejoin you).  I can be as pragmatically cynical as anyone, needs must, but I think we would do better to determine our own levels of moral repugnance on this one of our own volition.

*  I don't know what I've done with the font and can't be bothered to fix it.  Consider it my effort to shield you from the fullest intensity of my intellectual brilliance.  

Stop laughing (except you Mr Kopple; et tu eh?).

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

It's Amazon Pilot Season

Periodically, the good folks at present a selection of new TV series developed by people like you and me (well, me anyway; your fantasy life is your own) at Amazon Studios for Amazon customers to rate and review.  I want to recommend one particular program currently up for audience review, Cocked.

Brian Dennehy plays the family patriarch and gun business founder Wade Paxson.  Jason Lee plays the elder son, heir apparent and perennial ne're-do-well Grady.  Sam Trammell plays his younger brother Richard, who has made a life and career outside the family business and industry.

Wade Paxson has built a solid business catering to the traditional "Fudd" segment of the gun buying market; rifles and shotguns for hunting and target shooters.  Grady Paxson has spent all the family's available cash designing and manufacturing a new product line for the company, a "semi-automatic revolver".  Revealing further depth to the Paxson family structure, Wade's brother Rayburn has his own gun company, and apparently has Wade's shop thoroughly penetrated with his own people, as he also brings a "semi-auto revolver" to market - at considerably less cost.  Desperate to save the company he spent his life building, Wade begs (and otherwise coerces) his younger son to help stave off the pending disaster.  High-larity, as they say, not to mention drama and more than a little comedy, follows.

Cocked airs most of the usual memes and catch phrases anyone familiar with guns (or just gun debates) is familiar with - but does so in a reasonably neutral fashion, and occasionally quite indirectly.  As example, the commonplace pro gun ownership expression "when seconds count, a cop is only minutes away" isn't spoken in dialogue, but following a violent attack on Richard, the responding cop notes there isn't much he can do to catch the attacker or prevent another attack.  In another scene, Richard's wife accuses the family of "selling fear", to which Wade responds that guns are "just tools".  In none of this drama does anyone come off as morally superior, nor does anyone get spared from a sometimes too-revealing look.

I hope Amazon produces this series, and you can help convince Jeff Bezos and the boys and girls at Amazon Studios to do just that.  Follow the link above, watch the pilot episode, then click on the little blue Find out more link, and Take the survey.  You don't have to be an Amazon Prime member, but I expect no one there would outright object if you did join up.  Also, the show is rated TV-MA because, titties, violence and grown people doing some fairly tedious stupid behavior in somewhat explicit fashion.  Nothing too outrageous (which may be more revealing of my standards than anything else), but expect to have to field some awkward questions from the younger set if you let them watch with you.

Finally, there are 12 other pilot shows up for audience review at Amazon right now; I also recommend Mad Dogs and The Man in the High Castle as being worth your interest, pretty much in that order of preference too (tastes vary; get your own).  There are some kid-oriented shows too, but mine are raising there own kids these days, so I don't have to develop an opinion you would want to read about any of that category of programming.

No Amazonians or actual pilots were harmed in the production of this post.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Political Strategy, In My Briefs

Louis Gohmert is my Member of Congress, so I'm not just some less-than-grunteled citizen here.  Let me further say that I support his declared intent to seek the Speakership of the House of Representatives (and as a general political principle, the intent of others to change the leadership - and thereby the direction - of the Republican Party in Congress, and presumably overall, as well).

That said, there is a cautionary aspect to this tale.

The Democrat nominee for Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.  I will not be at all shocked to click over to Drudge one morning soon and read that she is the Speaker-elect for the 114th Congress, and myriad stories quoting the RNC leadership loudly blaming "divisive insurgents within the party" (read: people opposed to their continued choke hold on control of the Republican Party) for that result.

I do hope Louis and the rest have given a good deal of preparatory effort to organizing their little putsch, as those who currently run the RNC are demonstrably willing to arrange a quiet little deal with the DNC just in the ordinary course of events; how much more likely are they to do so rather than give up control of the RNC entirely?

I'm not predicting this outcome, I just won't be at all surprised should it occur.  A profound change in political organization generally has been a building social pressure in the United States for many years now.  History documents just how infrequently that sort of shift occurs without similar disruption of domestic social structures as well.  Mostly, and fortunately, those societal and political changes occur in a generally peaceful manner; here's hoping that trend continues whoever the next Speaker of the House should be.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

What Next, A Delivery By Tom Hanks?

I live at the rear of the apartment complex I have called "home" for the last 13 years.  Fed Ex and UPS delivery vans are a normal weekday occurrence.  I just saw the second Fed Ex van make a drop-off at this end of the complex today - and Saturday delivery isn't all that regular an event normally.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

"Mail's In"

So, I ordered a product from an on-line vendor.  As you do.

I paid for my purchase via Pay Pal.  As you do.

I received a shipping notification from the vendor with a tracking number.  As you do.

In this case, the shipping/tracking number was through the USPS.  I checked on the status of my package three days after I was told to expect arrival (the expected delivery date being a Saturday, not getting too concerned until after the subsequent Tuesday's mail delivery didn't seem an unreasonable imposition).  As you do.

Checking in with the USPS official website I cut-n-paste the tracking number I was provided into the provided search box and, lo and behold, my package was apparently delivered "in or at the mailbox at 2:07 pm on December 8, 2014".  Now, I did indeed receive the expected monthly cable bill on that date, so I'm confident a postal delivery was actually made on the day in question.  Just not the package I was anticipating.

Already being on the USPS website, I attempted to use the contact link for the Postal Inspectors to report on my waylaid, or at least undelivered to me, package.  After the usual cut-n-paste entry of the identical tracking number I had just entered via the same manner into the "track your package" search box, the Postal Inspectors reporting page informs me that this is an invalid tracking number, or at least now possesses an excess of spaces between the digits.  Needless to say, removing the spaces from between said digits resulted in the same error message.  Repeatedly.

The expression "Going Postal" begins to take on added piquancy.

There is a provided 1-800 number; once my blood pressure medication (which I will have to have my doctor prescribe me very soon now, I fear) and my soporific-of-choice has an opportunity to take effect, I really must give due consideration to attempting that avenue of communication.

My next venture into 21st Century mercantilism will be to inquire with the on-line vendor referenced above to see if he wants more of my money, and what amount will additionally be required to purchase insurance and make my next delivery be "return receipt requested".  Since the product is something of a limited offering, I'm not feeling confident.

At least our benevolent government doesn't issue guns and clubs to postal carriers yet, so their assault on us isn't quite as direct as it might be (insert link to your preferred example of police brutality here), but we can still live in hope.  As you do.

Update 12/18:  Screw you, Post Office thieves.  UPS for the rebound and the win!

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

So That Was A Surprise For Who Exactly?

I expect the topic de jour (and for a few more days, likely) will be events in - or possibly inspired by - Ferguson MO, so here's my observation so far.

First, I want to commend the young lady identifying herself as @MissJupiter1957.  Perhaps Matt Drudge will explain how he came to link to her live stream reporting, but thanks to his doing so I and tens of thousands of others were able to gather an immediate, first-person impression of the chaotic nature of events last night.  If I may Young Miss, would you please make a more consistent effort to keep we viewers better informed of your location within the city and a general sense of direction your camera is pointing.  You editorializing as you record events is an expected aspect of blogging, with or without video, but if you could attempt to add greater context to events and about the locale you are in, we viewers would have a better understanding of things.  Other than that, really well done; thank you.

Second, at about 9:30 pm local time, Ferguson police reported the presence of a vehicle outside the Toys-R-Us store (I believe this was the store located at Festival Dr. and Pershall Rd.) and 1 or more individuals attempting to break in (one of my colleagues had the on-line addy for the Ferguson PD radio traffic) (there's also this FB page).  Perhaps 5 - 8 minutes later, a police supervisor reported over the police radio that "20 to 30 cars are in the parking lot" and asked for additional units to respond to the "crime scene".  My memory is that not much more than 10 minutes later the on-scene supervisor reported the presence of "100+ cars in the Toys-R-Us parking lot".  By 10:00 pm the police communications center had broadcast a general order for all responding units to the Toys-R-Us to retreat from the crime scene.  I suggest this is an example of a Flash Mob robbery successfully deployed to deliberately exceed the police capacity to respond.  I further doubt I was the only one to recognize the lesson being acted out in real-time, live and unrehearsed, or that we will lack for further - possibly more extreme - examples in the near future.

I well remember the 1992 riots in the greater-Los Angeles area.  The technology didn't exist for flash mobs then, so the pre-planning was far more complex, but there was an obvious pattern of distraction fires being set followed by armed robbery and arson of area grocery stores and other businesses.  Not of their merchandise, though that was certainly common enough, but of the business cash specifically.  We'll have to see if this pattern re-occurs in-and-around Ferguson (or elsewhere in the country) in the coming days.

Islamists and academics aren't the only people able to recognize changed circumstance, ponder the varieties of possibility such opens up to them, and adapt their tactics to adopt the advantages that technology permits them in the face of static and predictable opposition to their achieving their desires.  People read the phrase 4GW Warfare and glide right over considering just what types of behavior - and by whom - that entails, especially when the military isn't directly involved.  Which is largely the point behind the whole 4GW exercise; distract your opponent with obvious but discrediting targets to his advantage, while you attack his points of dis-advantage to his deliberately public dis-credit.  It's already happened here, can you really think we are somehow immune?

Here's a consideration; how long before it becomes accepted thinking for criminals to consider the follow-up arrest to be an anticipated opportunity for them to even further overwhelm police efforts against them, and in just as organized a fashion as the crimes they "spontaneously" perpetrate?  Alternatively, SWAT-ing someone so as to be positioned to attack the responding cops in an interlocking series of re-enforcing ambushes maybe?  As cover for a robbery elsewhere perhaps, fires not generally being a police responsibility.  It doesn't take a brainiac to learn this stuff and you definitely want a ready supply of  - how shall I put this? - low information thinkers within your ranks; the primary requirement is a willingness to destroy the society/culture you live in.  Give a listen to @MissJupiter1957 again and pay attention to the voices she records.