As an airship aficionado I was quite pleased to read this story on the resurgence of airship development. It has some flaws - the journalist focused almost exclusively on French airship development - but it discusses the issue well.
The airship has had similar strengths and weakness to the ship that travels the waterways. Both the airship and the ship are slower than planes, have better fuel efficiency for the weight they transport, and are tolerant of mechanical failure. The market air freighters will require a more durable material for airship design to reduce the effects of weather.
Hat tip: Original Cin
Saturday, July 12, 2008
A new age of Zeppelins?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Science as an adventure
On National Review Online, I was pleased to see an excellent article on the refreshing new law in Louisiana. As one who has studied science at the graduate level, it was always amazing to see how different the perception of science that was presented in my earlier education from the actual practice of science. Theories go back and forth, researchers try to either extend or overturn conventional wisdom, groundbreaking work runs into bureaucratic and personal disputes, etc. Much like an other field of human endeavor, science is quite capable of making errors and barking up the wrong tree Fortunately, science includes many ways of correcting errors, including rival researchers eager to disprove your theory.
Science also avoids errors by using consensus. Generally, the more researchers who have tested a theory and found it superior to previous knowledge, the more likely it is true. This is necessary to have some form of knowledge in science. A group of researcher seeking to present findings that challenge consensus have to provide very convincing data, as scientists are taught to see most differences from consensus are erroneous. If you notice two like charges apparently attracting, as I experience in a physics class, you do not assume Coulomb's law is in question.
However, most truly dramatic scientific discoveries involve adding up the problems facing the consensus, and composing a rival theory. Some of these types will be cranks or frauds like the cold fusion fiasco, but a significant number will have a useful perspective. After all, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past on the Earth being the center of the universe (Why can't we see an parallax if it is revolving?), the Ether (What wave propagates without a medium?), and even classical mechanics (You expect us to believe that we have an uncertain position and momentum?) Perhaps it could be wrong on something else. And there lies the adventure.
The Louisiana law frees up the science classroom from these attempts at enforcing an orthodoxy, and is thus to be commended. Teaching science as it is would be much more exciting for students and better for public knowledge. Next time, a news article reporting that scientists have found some odd medical discovery, people would wonder about what other scientists think of the matter and if other studies have backed it up. It also might make debates on areas where science touches policy, such as climate change and evolution. While my views on these subjects are for a later post, the efforts to crack down on differing theories and brand them as crazy or unscientific are reprehensible. They bring back memories not of the great scientists like Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein, and Curie. Rather, they bring to mind zealous inquisitors enforcing the tenets of an iedological religion.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Obama - whatever you want him to be
Obama is an interesting candidate. His supporters are all over the map, and remarkably enthused over him. Christians see him as a fellow Christian based on his professed faith, while Muslims see him as a covert Muslim based on his childhood. Racial separatists see him as the standard bearer for the beliefs he learned under Rev. Wright, while racial reconciliation activists look to his multiracial makeup. Hard leftists look his past community organizing activity and work with Ayers* and Dohrn, while moderates look to his current positions. He has courted the Israelis and Palestinians, patriots and anti-American activists, and all races. What is wrong with this? Is not wide appeal necessary to win the election?
Yes, but it leaves the candidate with no set position. If everyone projects their desires onto Sen. Obama, what is left that is distinctly Barack? What will he actually be in office? I'd appreciate some clarity, but it seems there really is no pressure on the Senator to do so. When he clarifies a position, he'll lose the other side, so why should he? Normally, you would expect the media to pounce on a politician playing a shell game like this, but they seem too enthralled (a thrill up their legs?) with him to ask tough questions. Sad, really.
Perhaps he will run this all the way the White House, but it could just as easily come crashing down. All it takes is a little reporting and a lot of guts.
*I met Ayers at an Iraq War Forum. For a man who still advocates explosives as a form of political discourse he was less than terrifying. I'd even say he was charismatic. All in all, he was a fairly likable terrorist.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
China: A uniter, not a divider
Witnessing the outbreak of protests against China's treatment of the people of Tibet is an interesting experience. It is striking just how much diversity there is among the protesters. Citizen photojournalist Zombie documents just how many different groups joined together to protest the Torch rally in San Francisco. I have to say I would normally be opposed to the protest, as I dislike protesting in general, but it seems to be a valid cause. After all, the point of the torch ceremony is to give public support for the Olympics, and what better time to remind people of the darker side of China? This points to a deeper issue.
How many of those protesters would be at each others throats on another day? The hard Left would likely have a problem with the South Vietnamese flags, as they are an unpleasant reminder of their past failures. The march even brought out 9/11 conspiracy nuts, who don't get along with any sane person. Conservatives are lining up behind this cause alongside hippies. This doesn't happen often, save in fiction. In fiction, the various enemies unite against a common foe so often it is a cliché. Usually, this foes is such a terrifying threat and menacing evil that it is in the best interests of all to unite.
Has China achieved that status? Perhaps it has. It is a post-Communist state that has kept the repression of Maoism while unleashing laissez-faire capitalism to line their pocketbooks. China has no use for petty regulations concerning clean air, drinkable water, worker safety, or even copyrights. Chinese spies regularly attempts to steal both state and corporate secrets, particularly from the United States. It is a state that annexes land for their own use. From a certain perspective, the usual caricature of the United States as a brazen imperialist capitalist authoritarian regime fits China awfully well.
The real question is why irhabi terrorists and Islamic supremacists have not united the civilized world against them. Their brutality is well documented, as is their hatred of gays, blacks, Jews, and just about every other victim group. Women are treated as intrinsically evil. They openly mimic the Nazi regime and have declared war on all countries that do not submit to them. How is it that a group of thugs with a level of evilness that would be unbelievable in a fictional work is unable to get people stand together against them?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Secretary of State for President McCain
Senator McCain is going to want to outline cabinet choices for important departments. The state department is a particularly tough choice. Handling the foreign relations of the United States is a big job in and of itself. That is not the only challenge, however. The State department has a very liberal organizational culture (a bit like public health), likely due to the background of those working there. Most international relations students tend to be liberal. Getting Foggy Bottom (a nickname for State) on board with the president's agenda requires a lot of dedication. Condi was proof that being a genius was not good enough. You have to be stubborn and willing to be disliked, or you will go native.
Who then do I recommend for this contentious but important post?
Senator Joseph Lieberman. The Connecticut Democrat is a long-time friend of McCain, and even more of a maverick in his own party than McCain. His principled stances on foreign policy win him much praise from Republicans and Democrats. I've always hoped he could get a chance at a position in the executive, and I mentioned him in a discussion of pro-defense liberals here. Ralph Peters goes into detail about why Joe is a good choice in this NY Post article. Joe is particularly good on the war on terror.
He's also easier to confirm than someone like John Bolton, who deserves a spot with a tough bureaucracy like state or intelligence. Sadly, Bolton is so controversial that he will be a hard sell for a top level position. Lieberman could probably pull it off, and actually stay worthwhile as opposed to giving in to pressure.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Solidarity
Cartoons are not worth killing over. Ever. Until Muslims learn that free speech applies to their religious figures, they will be unable to live in our societies. I pray the you remain safe, Mr. Westergaard.
The estimable Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has a list of solidarity bloggers, which will hopefully include your humble author.
A man I'm happy to see dead
The Hezbollah terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyah has reportedly bit the dust by a car bomb. (I sense some irony) If he is actually dead, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the people who took him out, probably the Mossad. I first read about at Pajamas Media where I came across a link to a bombshell.
It was listed as an "Alternate view", but is strangely no longer present. The link is from Jane's, hardly a disreputable source. It is dated 9/19/2001, and it alleges that Imad and Dr. Zawahiri were behind the attacks, sponsored by - Iraq. If this still held as an opinion it changes the entire national security debate. I am attempting to investigate this. (Update after the jump)
I sent this to Andrew Cochran , founder of the Counter-Terrorism Blog an email asking if this was the current thought among CT professionals. Here is his response:No - and this article forgot that Al Qaeda was behind Ramzi Yousef's 1995 Bojinka Plot to bomb 11 US jetliners, and that KSM had already planned a second 9/11-type attack, which OBL iced. See http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/london_the_latest_in_a_string.php. Certainly Mughniyeh was more experienced as of 2001, but OBL and Zawahiri were brilliant pupils.
I'd also imagine the Iraq connection also did not fair well with time. I have read elsewhere that Imad was an inspiration to Al Qaeda. That, and and the blood countless innocents on his hands, is more than enought reason to celebrate his death.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Let's get serious...
We all know that John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination for president. However, not many on the GOP side are happy. (Contrast this with the deification of Obama on the left) The question most are asking is why, but that is easily answered. McCain has repeatedly shown disrespect to the Republican base. His comments on evangelicals turned me off from him in 2000. His stance on immigration was foolish, and he defended in the in the most disgusting matter. For many, he was their last choice as a candidate. This means that a little lack of enthusiasm is understandable.
The sizable number of individuals deciding to favor the democrats is a different matter entirely.
How is this any different from the krazy kos kids blowing up over Lieberman? What happened to the big tent?
The question is one of victory. McCain is not going to surrender in the War. Ever. He does not have a surrender bone in his body. The problem has been and will be getting him lower his guard around us as opposed to staying in fighting mode.
The opposition candidates are worthless on the war. They are in a hurry to surrender as soon as they entire the role of Commander in Chief. They won't own the war - did the democrats get any flack for leaving our allies to die in Vietnam? The military also took a long time to recover. Honestly, is there any position where the Democrats are more conservative than McCain?
I understand the desire to keep ideological purity, but McGovern and Goldwater showed that this doesn't work. Carter did not inevitably lead to Reagan, and we are still dealing with his fallout. (Iran, anyone?) Clinton did not lead inevitably to Bush - that election was quite close. Not only that, but Bush and even Reagan were less conservative and more maverick than is often remembered. Notably, both favored amnesty for illegals...
I hereby endorse McCain-(insert actual conservative here) for president in 2008.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Still No Free Lunch
Wretchard at the Belmont Club, discusses the newly-discovered perils of green buildings with his typical intelligence and eloquence. It seems that designing a building to be energy-efficient also makes it a target for birds. Yet another case of the law of unintended consequences playing havoc with the plans of men. Suddenly, the green strategy is discredited, and yet another green strategy takes its place. The building owners are left holding the bag and wondering why they bothered to build green in the first place.
Wrethchard extends this to a discussion of the precautionary principle and the Kyoto Protocol.But the point is that we expect a return on all the effort being poured into Kyoto and are being charged for the investment. But what if it's a dry hole? What if there's no return? What happens if in fact we have to pay for fixing the damage we did with Kyoto because we didn't care about the science since the "precautionary principle" took care of everything? What then?
What then indeed? This is the fundamental argument against the precautionary principle cast in an unconventional light. Not only could a decision made without sufficient evidence lead to a solution that fails to work or justify its cost, it could create further problems that we failed to recognize. The pregnant woman has morning sickness - quick, give her the thalidomide!'The market will fix it'. Yes, but we've fixed the market because it wasn't working to our satisfaction. Kyoto has the potential to be greatest single boondoggle since Charles Ponzi began his illustrious career. That's not to say it won't benefit mankind. But then, how would we measure that benefit? Oh, I forgot: the precautionary principle renders that question unnecessary.
Unnecessary for the people who campaign for and launch the program. No cost will fall upon them. Ironically, Charles Ponzi also seemed to have good intentions.
There are often delays in publishing environmental and occupational regulations. Much of the time, it is simply the result of industry lobbyists seeking to buy time and stave off reduced profits. However, it would be foolish to always rush to implement new standards before the controversy is addressed. Better to wait and solve the original problem than to hurry and add more problems.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Alternative Energy: Also good for cutting terror funding
One of the beneficial side effects of reducing our oil demand is that we reduce the income of major oil producing nations. (It's the simple result of the law of supply and demand) This is especially apparent in the Arab world, where the majority of their GNP is derived from oil. When you consider the backing many of these states provide for terrorism and insurgencies, it makes sense to deny them excessive funding. Israeli writer Yair Lapin lay it out here.Initially I planned to sell myself an immediate holiday. Why should I bother the Israeli public with something that even I think is boring? Then I thought about it a little more and a little more and after two weeks I had an answer. I am a little reluctant here because honestly it’s not politically correct. The only way to sell environmental protection to the Israeli public is to explain the one advantage:
It’s a way of screwing the Arabs.
I want to make it clear I am not including in this, God forbid, those peace-loving Arabs who believe in coexistence with the State of Israel. I am talking about the other billion and a half or so for whom the whole issue of environmental protection was created in order to screw them. The only reason this has not been presented to you before is that most of the people who deal with Green activism are well meaning lefties and people who wear round glasses who have no desire to screw anyone. They prefer a quiet clean world where everyone wears white and listens to folk music. That’s very nice but it will never work in Israel. We’re not programmed that way. If we can’t screw someone then we are not interested.
But it is possible because in the larger context, environmental protection includes a subject no less important called "alternative sources of energy". Green activists will be happy to explain the details to you, but the bottom line is that burning oil releases soot and heat, contributes to the melting of the icebergs in Antarctica and sends pollution into the atmosphere of this wonderful planet of ours.
Crap, I fell asleep again.
For example, I would create a much more original environmental start up. I would carve up the Antarctica into shot-glass size ice cubes. The real reason we need to find alternative sources of energy is not the troubled environment but the fact that it's Arabs who sell most of the oil to the rest of the world. The sad outcome of this is that they have lot of money and we know where this money goes: To Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as well as to the funding of terror worldwide much of which is directed at us.
It’s aggravating to think that every time we get into the car we are giving money to Hamas, and that is something we Israelis needs to seriously think about. Sixty percent of the country’s oil consumption goes to our vehicles. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were the first to use cars which don’t run on petrol. (The technology exists. It just keeps getting stonewalled by the big oil and automotive interests.) We have everything going for us: We’re smart, technologically savvy and when money is involved we’re pretty industrious. Besides, we are small enough for trials that could be carried out by the entire population and we are big enough to export the technology to the entire world. The Jewish intellect has changed the world in the past and there is no reason it can’t do it again in the future.
Fire up the nuclear reactors, crank out the biofuels, and conserve some oil. It's time to do our part in shutting down the money supply for Al Qaeda and IEDs. I'm ready for the new propaganda posters - "When you drive alone, you drive with Osama!"
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
No Free Lunch
One of the most important lessons to learn about environmental issues (which are a branch of public health) is that almost everything has a trade off. Every benefit has a cost, and as citizens we have to assess that cost before deciding on a method to achieve the benefit.
Take organic food, for example. Agricultural pollution is a major concern , with a number of rural water supplies showing levels of pesticides and manufactured fertilizers that worthy of concern. Going organic eliminates this problem, but creates several more. It turns out that the methods of organic food production release more carbon dioxide from the soil than industrial methods, and also require more land.
There are no simple solutions to problems. If there were, we would have solved all of our problems already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
