Archive

Archive for January, 2012

26 years later, pessimism is still needed

January 28th, 2012 1 comment

We lost Challenger twenty-six years ago today. I was in third grade. I was in a wedding the day we lost Columbia. Both of them were lost because of the fatal design flaw of placing the human-carrying vehicle next to the explosivey-stuff. In the first case, the explosivey-stuff done blowed up real good and in the second, a piece of the explosivey-stuff tank blew a hole in the human-carrying vehicle.

If, instead of next to the tank, the shuttle sat on top of the tank, with the engines attached to the tank itself, then the Challenger would not have made orbit but might have been saved. Columbia would have returned unharmed with such a configuration.

What does it matter? Not much to the crews and families, but a hell of a lot to engineers of tomorrow’s systems. If we think of how badly things might break, and how they might break, we can envision ways to make them better. Society benefits when engineers are pessimistic about their designs and work to improve them.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

The IRA, de Valera, the Nazis, and the judgment of history

January 26th, 2012 No comments

I’m making my way through Tim Pat Coogan’s The IRA, which is considered the definitive historical work on the Irish Republican Army. I’m only about a third of the way through it, which corresponds to the late 1940s-early 1950s, but the IRA comes off as a violent but incompetent group that was ineffective in achieving their goal of a united, independent Land of Eire.

The topic first came to my interest after I watched Michael Collins, which ends in the title figure’s death at the hands of the IRA (specifically, Jonathan Rhys Meyers character, so it could be said that Henry VIII killed Michael Collins). Collins had worked out an agreement with Great Britain which amounted to freedom for 26 of Ireland’s 32 counties, the remaining six being the “Northern Counties” dominated by Protestants. The President of the Irish Free State at that time was Eamon de Valera, who opposed the treaty but essentially accepted it once it was ratified. Collins saw it as a step forward, since it gave the 26 counties what amounted to freedom, and had he lived, it is thought that he would have worked towards unification.

The militant opposition coalesced into what we know as the IRA, and began a campaign of violent opposition to the “occupation” of the Northern Counties. This campaign began with a civil war and Collins’ death and eventually fizzled out as the independent militia was crushed between English forces in the North and de Valera’s counterinsurgency in the rest of the country. The IRA was a threat to his rule, and as he saw it, a threat to the stability of the country. He would use them as a political foil when it was useful, but often was at odds with what they were doing. Many of the leaders of the IRA ended up in prison or dead, sometimes through assassination (by both British and Irish opponents) and sometimes through incompetent bomb-makers whose creations went off a bit too soon.

By the time the Nazis rose and war loomed in 1938-39, England was in a tight predicament. They did not want Ireland to fight against England if it came to war, but they also did not want them to sit out, which was de Valera’s preferred tactic. The Nazis wanted Ireland in the fight against England, as did many in the IRA and some in the Irish populace. This isn’t to say that those elements were necessarily pro-Nazi, but merely that they were anti-English and saw an opportunity to unite the country.

Some Irish decided to fight, despite their country’s official neutrality. After the war, these men were blacklisted, and some place blame for this on the Irish government at the time. This clouds the issue though, and ignores some relevant facts.

First, the Irish government, like any other, is a political organization, subject to political considerations and influenced by the people it governs. If it was expedient to blacklist the men who fought for England, then they would be willing to do so. This isn’t to defend them, but merely to explain their actions – they felt justified in blacklisting the men because they felt they would suffer no repercussions from the populace.

Second, accusing the Irish government of being pro-Nazi (as some do) ignores the good that was done for the Allied cause by de Valera’s government during the conflict. Flyers who were downed over Ireland either went to prison or they were returned to their country of loyalty. But the crux of the matter is that, according to Coogan, only British flyers were returned to the fight – Luftwaffe aircrews were detained. In one case, a group of British flyers were collected, driven north to the border with the six counties, and left alone as they crossed over. Now, people can quibble over whether or not Ireland was truly neutral, or whether they should have fought against the Nazis, but actions like that were much more beneficial to the Allies than to the Nazis.

Some people don’t understand the depth of the Irish hatred for the British; it is not easily extinguished or dimmed simply because there was a war on. They also confuse the actions of the IRA, which according to some sources ineptly tried to get the Nazis to invade Ireland, with the actions of the Irish Government. The two are not the same. The IRA was and is an independent militia, organized against the ruling government in favor of a government that rules all 32 counties, not just the Catholic 26 in the South. The Republic of Ireland is an internationally recognized government, able then as now to decide its level of involvement in foreign wars.

As I said, I’m only about a third of the way through the book, but it is an interesting read. It gives needed perspective for a conflict that runs even longer than the past century.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

$40 per shot

January 25th, 2012 No comments


Now that’s an elephant gun, though you might do to the elephant what a .30-06 would do to a squirrel. Hat tip: The Firearm Blog.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Now that's my kind of preacher

January 24th, 2012 No comments

Jennifer is going through Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy and recently told me she wants to read more about Karl Barth (pronounced Bart). A quick read of the Wikipedia article produced this gem of a quote. When he refused to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler in 1935, he

… then returned to his native Switzerland (home of the phrase, Ein Schweizer, sieben Deutsche – MSM), where he assumed a chair in systematic theology at the University of Basel. In the course of his appointment he was required to answer a routine question asked of all Swiss civil servants: whether he supported the national defense. His answer was, “Yes, especially on the northern border!”

The impetus for his exodus was the Barmen Declaration of 1934, which he wrote and personally mailed to Der Midget mit dem Moustache, declaring that no, the church would not switch the cross of Christ for the crooked cross and call it all copacetic. From Jennifer’s book, we learn this little joy:

The principal author of the Barmen Confession was Karl Barth, who claimed to have produced the final version “fortified by strong coffee and one or two Brazilian cigars.”

Something tells me his sermons were full of both snark and conviction.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney

January 23rd, 2012 1 comment

Mitt Romney will never get my vote. Ever. And with good reason – he’s no different than who we have in office now.

He’s willing to sign legislation that destroys fundamental natural rights in this country:

Which is no different than Obama.

He has no concern for the suffering of the infirm:

Which is no different than Obama.

He has no trustworthy respect for the right of self defense:

Which is no different than Obama’s evil intentions.

He supports war without the consent of Congress:

Which is no different than Obama.

He thinks the unborn do not deserve to have their rights protected:

Which is no different than Obama.

He supports the individual mandate:

Which is no different than Obama.

“Oh, oh, but that’s not the whole story! He’s pro-life and pro-gun now, and he wants to repeal RomneyObamaCare!” Really? He hasn’t done anything to back up those claims. He is all talk, no action – until I see action, I won’t believe him.

Tell me, those of you who support Romney over Obama: what, precisely, is the difference between the two? Are you really saying I should vote for the former instead of the latter because he has an ‘R’ after his name? Or is it because he says things that sound better than Obama? What does it matter if he does something else instead?

I am not throwing away my vote – to the contrary, the Republicans threw away the nomination, and never earned my vote.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

A gentle reminder

January 20th, 2012 No comments

The laptop I’m writing this on has a quad core processor, eight gigabytes of RAM, and chomps integers 64 bits at a time. It is faster in every respect than every computer I’ve used for work or personal use before. My point is not to brag, but to state the obvious – computers get faster every day.

As a result, computer programs get faster platforms to run on, which means that the password that is eight characters long and has been in your regular rotation for five years now has seen computer power increase more than eightfold. If it was used at a website that has had a user account compromisation in that time, you can safely bet that it has been cracked.

Go fix that. Think up something long, but easy to remember (let XKCD 936 be your guide, along with this explanation), then go check it here. You’ll be glad you did, someday.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Newt comes in last

January 19th, 2012 No comments

Rick Perry is now out, of his own will. Newt Gingrich will soon join him, the victim of a woman scorned. If the allegations in the interview are true, he’s done. There is no way for him to avoid coming in last, Which puts Paul and Santorum in a fight for second. According to one poll I saw over Christmas, the Perry and Paul poll numbers move in opposite directions and the moves are equal in magnitude – that is, undecideds are switching back and forth between the two Texans. I’m betting that most of them don’t go for Gingrich, even if Perry suggests they do, and Dr. Paul will be the unexpected beneficiary, bumping Santorum into an unexpected third.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

SOPA sees the Internet and wants to paint it black

January 18th, 2012 1 comment

Gah. SOPA and PIPA have led the Atlases of the Internet to make quite the splash today, turning Wikipedia, Google, and other sites black in protest against the bills. I am all for copyright holders being able to earn their keep from their own production, but these bills are completely unnecessary.

First, let’s look at existing copyright law. The (then, and probably still now) hated Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows copyright holders to issue notice-and-takedown/cease-and-desist orders against violators. Apparently, this isn’t enough prior restraint to satisfy certain parts of society, and those parts want more. The bills allow – and even encourage – disinterested third parties with links to the offenders to be shut down, even if they do not distribute the copyrighted material themselves, and even if only a part of the site (such as a user-controlled page) had the links. This amounts to coercive non-association enforced by the government prior to any trial or lawsuit. How anyone could support such a thing and call themselves an advocate of liberty is beyond me.

But let’s move beyond simple copyright issues and consider the worldview that encourages such bills in the first place. Remember back to your New Deal-Great Depression education in public schools where they taught you about Wickard v. Filburn, which essentially removed all constraints on Congress as a regulating body.

What’s that? You’ve never heard of Wickard v. Filburn and its effects on us today? Color me surprised.</sarcasm>

Congress does have the power to regulate copyrights and patents (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) but they do not have the power to regulate the Internet. If we want to give them that power, then go through the Article V process and make it official. I’m sure you’ll get tons of support for letting the government take over and regulate to death another part of our economy. (I guess I shouldn’t have closed that sarcasm tag above).

Congress thinks they can write bills like this, and allow big companies to shut down small companies, even if the small ones did nothing mala in se wrong. This is an exercise of power we have not given to the Congress, which means that we, the people of this country, are seeing a usurpation take place right before us. Although we the people do not have the power to shut down companies that have done nothing wrong, we cannot let any group subordinate to us claim that authority in our name.

These bills must die, and the people who still support them after today must be removed from office. The one who destroys the boundaries set around his power is the one who plans to destroy the rights protected by those boundaries. Give them no quarter.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Not for use in aquariums

January 17th, 2012 No comments

Montgomery Scott, call your office: Transparent Aluminum.

No, it isn’t just something from sci-fi, it’s a real-life thing:

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

"The Great Communicator" he ain't

January 16th, 2012 No comments

We’re sitting here, listening to the Republican Not-Really Debate on Fox News, and I am thoroughly unimpressed. Bret Baier said at the outset that they were going to dispense with the doorbells and buzzers and just cut the candidates off, but it hasn’t been working out like that. Personally, I’d suggest the introduction of an air horn.

Ron Paul, my preferred front-runner, has been giving pretty good answers, but he stumbled on the Osama bin Laden question. He should have said what he said, but he used ten times as many words as he needed to. He should have reminded people that he voted for war in Afghanistan and avoid talk of his position on Iraq. On the earlier question about defense spending, he made an ambiguous distinction between defense spending (which he opposes) and military spending (which he approves). The difference is that the former we allocate to project power around the world, while the latter we use to defend territory at home. This is consistent with what he’s said in the past, but the distinction was lost on the moderators and he didn’t get a follow up.

Not that we should expect one, since this isn’t a real debate. For all his faults, Newt Gingrich has the right idea in advocating for Lincoln-Douglas (that is, traditional) style debates. However, those don’t work very well with more than two people on the stage. They would be perfect for the last two contenders, or for the Republican nominee when facing off against Obama, but it isn’t a popular idea and won’t be done, despite being a great idea.

Ron Paul has the potential to be a great speech giver, but he’s terrible in impromptu presentations. His ideas are more original than the other candidates, and he’s ignored by a great number of people who might otherwise consider him more carefully, if they would bother to look past his opponent’s caricatures. The tripling of his poll and election numbers from 2008 is the great unnoticed story of this election. He deserves a place on the convention floor, no matter what his final disposition in the primary race.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: