Another.... post?

Two posts in one day? Wow.
Here's a few more links that struck my fancy.

Michael Totten has another great report.
He has some interesting commentary on the war in Lebanon last year and some US politicians that are drawing the wrong lessons from that conflict.


Berkeley... where the young and old both move on to relive past glories. Full of hippies and trendy revolutionaries. Careful, some of the pictures reek of useful idiots and failed politics.

Both the Democrat candidates meet with Syrian officials? Hmm. 'Realism' in Syria


Rand Simberg an bit of a grumpy aerospace engineer. Talks about a candidate with a lot of hope... and not much else. I'd recommend reading some of his other stuff. The things he says about NASA are deppressing, and true.

Meanwhile Charles Krauthammer puts that campaign in more... religious terms. And here I was thinking the Paulians were the cult.

Even for a politician, Obama is a very eloquent person, but what does he have to offer other than a notion of hope and change? What's an actual platform? From his limited record he seems to be a fairly standard if rather liberal Democrat.

Speaking of record. John Weidner comments on a new "low-down dirty trick--campaigning on issues and facts!" It looks like some people don't like the idea of others telling the populace Obama's voting records and history. Guess they'd prefer if he could just keep softbaling speaches that are political inkblots.


In more fun news the US Navy has an excuse to "shoot down" a satellite. The main problem with ASAT warfare is that it creates lots of debris that are a major hazard to other orbiters.

Unlike China's test this satellite is nonfunctional and in a decaying orbit, and breaking it up into many little pieces is desired. It's already falling into the atmosphere so breaking it up will dramatically decrease the odds of any pieces making it to the ground (whole heating being a function of surface area).

Information can be found on the very informative Strategypage. The usual suspects of defense procurement news have also written about it too.

Great site for anyone in defense engineering, procurement, military history, counter terrorism developments. All that good stuff.


There's more news. Of course there is. But nothing else strikes me right now.
Hat tip to Glen Reynolds the Instapundit for pointing out the links.

Also from him... a new Indiana Jones movie?

Huh.

So I'll end with a bit amount infinity.

The number of counting numbers {1,2,3...,n,...} is the same as the number of rational numbers {All n/m where n & m are any integer}.

You'd think one would be the subset of the other and indeed they are, but the definition of infinity is that when you take something away it's still the same size.

How do we show that they're the same size or cardinality? If one can establish an exact 1-to-1 correspondence. This link has the proofs in laymen's terms. Basically Cantor's Set theory should give you more to think about.

Popular Science's.... interesting articles

One on a "green" Mach 5 transport.

I'm amused because it uses hydrogen (not a novel fuel for Hypersonic engines) which they kept bleating about as how carbon neutral it is. Which sure the plane isn't releasing anything other than water vapor, but how is the hydrogen being made?

That little problem was mentioned once and quickly pushed aside. It's a real shame, as it's a very interesting plane and the article could have given more points on the other problems of supersonic-transports. Like how to carry enough cargo and passengers to make it profitable?

Despite their implications Hydrogen isn't some magical perfectly clean and free fuel. It's gotta be made somehow, and unless you use nuclear power to provide energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, the fuel generation will pollute.

Depending on the engine efficiency, H2 production method, and power source, it could pollute less than burring a conventional jet fuel, but selling it as a "clean fuel" is misleading.

Shame, it's an interesting technology, but the article itself was not as informative as I would have liked. The information on the engine was pretty good. The variable configuration was neat giving it two stages of efficient running (Mach 0.9 for overland and Mach 5 for over ocean).

Again this follows into my theory about being a skeptical consumer. One has to consider what the article is saying and check it against the tools the reader has available.

An earlier article Fly the Eco-Friendly Skies has similar... problems.
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-02/fly-eco-friendly-skies

It lauds a European Union system of carbon credits as a viable way for the guilty airlines to make up for their polluting. In gross terms a carbon credit system could make things even out.

That's assuming that the carbon release can actually be "offset". Accounting is also a major hassle. How does one balance high altitude release of hydrocarbons with say-planting trees or making poor people in developing countries use giant treadmills instead of electric generators to get their water.

This question of accounting is a major problem with Carbon Offsets and is what allows for so much corruption and weaseling in them. That doesn't even mention that they're modern indulgences for the wealthy.

Wealthy people, like celebrities, can buy off their "environmental burden" and go around in private jets (the article didn't mention thus but given how few people such planes transport pollute much more than airliners) lecturing the little people to use less.

And here's a quote from that article that is just... bad. "All those extra miles in the air translate into more jet fuel, and every pound of jet fuel releases three pounds of carbon into the upper atmosphere."

This confuses me. Obviously jet fuel is not some hypermaterial that somehow consists of 300% carbon, and even if the combustion reaction burned a carbon containing oxidizer that wouldn't add to the carbon release.

So the question is... where does this extra carbon come from? Maybe the writer is talking about the full production cycle of the fuel.

It would be nice to have this information. To know what the writer meant. Without it, I can only assume the writer is incapable of basic logic or at best is sloppy and has a careless editor.


It's not all bad. They had a neat if bland and short article on future Navy ships
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-02/warships-tomorrow
With a handful or pretty pictures.

Never-mind that Defense Industry Daily and Defense News and Strategypage have more information on these ships and came out with their articles months ago.

Real Reporting

Reporting on a subject used to require journalists to actually be there (you know, reporting on an event), but with the advent of wire services media outlets could just take news someone else has made.

This is related to the decline in quality and oversight in news. It's very disappointing, but situations like the "Rathergate" memos the story was too good to care about the little facts. Like how the terminology wasn't quite correct for memos from that age, or used odd typesetting that wasn't really possible, or the most egregious example that a messaged supposedly written in the 70's would be a perfect match for something typed up in word on the default settings.

Journalists are supposed to be suspicious and skeptical, but many have shown a desire to look the other way when the story matches their own prejudices. See my previous post on checking a report's numbers for some obvious examples.

This leads to a simple question? Who's information on an event would you trust more: a person that witnessed it or a person that heard about it from someone else?

It's the issue of primary sources versus secondary or tertiary.

Which leads to the situation in Iraq. Some amazing changes have, seemingly begrudgingly, bubbled up into the media and then soon forgotten.

But there were some people that knew about the effects of the Surge and other issues.
What I'm talking about is primary sources. Journalists that are actually in Iraq, and they're not just sitting in a hotel room funneling stories told to them by stringers of dubious quality.

They're out there reporting on events, talking with the troops, both grunt level and generals, talking with Iraqis, from security forces to sheiks and other local leaders.

To name two, one is Michael Totten. He has also reported on the Hezbollah/Israel war last year. His writings on Lebanon are also very informative and detailed.

Michael Yon is another reporter of great skill and has reported on much first-hand experience.

Say what you will about the war, but wouldn't it be better to have an informed opinion?
To read reports written by people that are actually there?

Bookcases, rotting fish, and good fish.

Some Furniture is hard to find.

I've got a spare bedroom and a mess of books.

Naturally, I thought bookcases and some sort of futon. Make it viable as a guest room and a library.

I'd attach a photo of the room, but right now it's just got a dresser, a chair, and some boxes.

Now bookcases are easy to find... if you want regurgitated fiberboard with a paper printed in the pattern of wood glued on.

That strikes me as a bit... tacky, but maybe it fits my taste in books: engineering texts, aircraft reference books, Terry Pratchett, Clancy, and a mess of other books. No literary greats here, but I would like some nice furniture.

I live in a city of about two million people. There should be some place to get a good bookcase.

Oak is my goal, something with a good stain, or can take one. Another idea is glass. I have a glass-top desk and a glass coffee table for the living room.

I like the hardwood and glass combination, but... a bookcase is load bearing, and I do have heavy texts.

So I'm still looking.

Not the most thrilling thing, but I don't feel the need to prattle on about work. I enjoy my job, so no complaints there.

As for Politics... well... of the people that are left, McCain is about it, as for the democrats... those two are nearly identical on policy, which leaves identity, and they're bashing each other apart.

It's been an "interesting" primary, and will be an "interesting" general election too. This election cycle has been going on and on and on... and the prospect of it narrowing down to some sort of end. Well it's kind of like finally finding that fish that's been rotting in the ductwork.

Speaking on more pleasant fish, Asaka has proven to be an enjoyable establishment and I regularly go.

It's nice that there's rather good sushi available this far inland. I also like that it's not a trendy place. Sushi is still an exotic fad food, and crappy rolls can easily be unloaded onto trendy knobs that don't know any better.


I suppose I can keep more up to date on this. It might give a bit easer way to keep track of things.

Speaking of books, I have found a few good ones and will give some comments on them in a later post.

Math-check the News

Via LGF a bit of simple math checking on a media report.

Here

The long and short of it is that the reporter is trying to say that a populace of 1.5 million needs 680,000 tons of flour a day.

Using a trick called "math", Martin Kramer was able to determine that the report itself is nonsense, given that it works out to around half a ton of flour a day per person in Gaza.

Did I mention that this "statistic" was used to show that Israel was restricting the food needs in Gaza by 99%?

Read the blog post itself to see how egregious this error is. It has been reported multiple times and contradicts the article's author's own estimates in previous years.


On many hot-button topics the numbers journalist quote should always be suspect.
For one reason this is because they prefer the "greater narrative". This is a fancy word for "They had the thrust of the story already determined and needed to fiddle with the numbers to make it fit."

Also it's just prudent to think critically about such things. Questioning authority and news is a good thing, it helps a person become more informed and able to tell what's actually going on.

It's important to remember scale. The number in that previous article was approaching the order of the number of people in it. That's the first test that something is fishy.

Often a simple calculation will uncover that the article is BS.

Sometimes it takes a little bit of research.

Like a recent NY Times article that tried to paint Veterans returning from Iraq as dangerous savages. The story was full of anecdotal evidence and stories of tragedy.

But when it came time to say exactly how many murders were committed (they also included incidents of manslaughter and automotive accidents another test tat something fishy was up).

Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000--quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times' 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times' research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact.

Full post here


What John Hinderaker did with nothing more than some national statistics and a bit of math was show that the entire point of an article was a flat out, and clumsy, lie.

John goes into more detail, but it's clear that someone with an agenda posted an article that pointed to one direction, facts be damned.

Also, notice how all the NY Time's editors or fact checkers let an article pass that was nothing but fear-mongering nonsense.

This is why you as a news reader has to be suspicious and do these calculations and tests. Sad as it is to say, the news cannot be trusted to get basic facts right.

For another, of many, examples. What's wrong with the pictures in this report?

This kind of clumsy ineptness shows how little the media thinks of it's customers.
Just ask Dan Rather, a man that still rants about a series of 70's era documents that just happen to be an exact. match to the default settings to Microsoft Word. You'd think the forgers in that case would at least bothered to find an old typewriter...

Positive, Negative, and Befuddling

From Instapundit a link to a report on trust in the media.
Here

On the plus side

“The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical onsumer of information in the U.S.” stated James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU’s Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture. “The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates,” he continued.

...

“Americans know bias and imbalance when they see it and they don’t like it. When most service organizations strive for consumer satisfaction ratings in the high eighties to low nineties, an overall positive rating of 40.7% is dismal,” said Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute. He added, “Americans know that it’s just not that hard to present both sides and keep personal bias at home.”

Shows we're not all blindly following rubes, and many of us will question what the news tells us.

For the negative, it's sad how pathetic the state of the media is. No wonder circulation numbers are plummeting and viewership is going down.

As for the strange...

By four-to-one margins, Americans surveyed see The New York Times (41.9% to 11.8%) and National Public Radio (40.3% to 11.2%) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative.

Over 10% found NPR and the Times at least somewhat conservative? Wow.


Additional findings of the same report can be found here

Blood Boiling.

Our Friends up north are up to some disturbing shenanigans.

http://ezralevant.com/

Is the story of Mr. Levant and what happened when he ran afoul of the Orwellian "Human Rights Commission".


Watch what happens. It's shocking how much of a farce the HTC is and the power they weild. On the plus side Ezra is knowledgable and articulate and points out exactly how wrong, illegal, and immoral the whole proceedings are.

What he does is real "speaking truth to power" and he is being charged with actual governmental censorship. Truly a case to follow.