. . . someone wanted to know what it looked like.
(Yes, that was a joke - it actually looks something like this:)
Clowning around
Item:
Story.
Nothing is sacred any more.
Next they'll change the recipe for the secret sauce in Big Macs...
Item:
McDonald’s is giving its long-time mascot a makeover. Ronald McDonald, the iconic clown that kids love and adults find quietly menacing, is getting a more modern look. The character will now sport a yellow vest and cargo pants instead of a jumpsuit, as well as a red-and-white striped rugby shirt. He’ll also don a red blazer and bowtie for “special occasions,” the company says.
Story.
Nothing is sacred any more.
Next they'll change the recipe for the secret sauce in Big Macs...
Graybeards in Ukraine . . .
Just in case you're tempted to believe (heh) Putin on Ukraine, the NY Times actually does some good work with visuals on why you shouldn't, with a series of photos that make it make it pretty clear that the Russians are actually the ones in charge in eastern Ukraine.
The graybeard in particular gets around (click here to go to the story and larger versions of the photos):
A side note - the fact that the same operative was active across so many years and places tells you a little about the alleged renaissance of Russian capabilities.
Just in case you're tempted to believe (heh) Putin on Ukraine, the NY Times actually does some good work with visuals on why you shouldn't, with a series of photos that make it make it pretty clear that the Russians are actually the ones in charge in eastern Ukraine.
The graybeard in particular gets around (click here to go to the story and larger versions of the photos):
A side note - the fact that the same operative was active across so many years and places tells you a little about the alleged renaissance of Russian capabilities.
Pioneering through disaster . . .
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 seems well on the way to joining Amelia Earhart's ill-fated trip as one of the world's enduring aeronautic mysteries. But air travel remains one of the safest ways to travel - it's safer to get on a plane than into a bathtub.
My bathtub, at least. And certainly any tub ever contemplated by Alfred Hitchcock.
It got that way because of outstanding engineering - and, unfortunately, a great deal of trial and error, as this BBC feature reminds us:
The full story, definitely worth reading, is here.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 seems well on the way to joining Amelia Earhart's ill-fated trip as one of the world's enduring aeronautic mysteries. But air travel remains one of the safest ways to travel - it's safer to get on a plane than into a bathtub.
My bathtub, at least. And certainly any tub ever contemplated by Alfred Hitchcock.
It got that way because of outstanding engineering - and, unfortunately, a great deal of trial and error, as this BBC feature reminds us:
The development of fast jet flight led to the death of legions of test pilots, notoriously during the 1950s. But these accidents led to technical improvements and changes in operations and legislation that were to make civil aviation increasingly safe.
Among the most shocking were the three occasions, within a year, when brand new de Havilland Comet airliners broke up in flight. Launched into service with BOAC in 1952, the Comet was the world’s first jet airliner. It was a beauty. It could cross the Atlantic in style and, for a moment, it looked as Britain might truly lead the Jet Age. And, yet, because the nature of metal fatigue, new construction techniques and repeated re-pressurisation of airliner cabins was little understood, early Comets were to fail in spectacularly fatal fashion.
In 1953 and 1954, three Comets broke up soon after taking off killing all on board, two over the Mediterranean as they climbed in January and April that year from Rome’s Ciampino airport, and a third caught in a thunder squall on the Calcutta to Delhi leg of a BOAC flight from Singapore to London. Comet flights were suspended, and production of the British jet was halted.
The full story, definitely worth reading, is here.
Dubious distinction dept.
Today I was blind-emailed one of those virtual promotional posters that are so popular on Facebook, list-serves, and the internet in general. Nothing unusual about that - I must average a dozen a day, not counting the ones with cats. But this one happened to contain a quote from something I wrote.
I guess I should feel honored, and I do. Pretty much. But . . . whoever copied it made a rather obvious and embarrassing typo. I'm sure my copy editor will throw his cup of coffee against the wall when it gets around to him.
Could be worse, I guess. The words could have been printed over a picture of a kitten.
Today I was blind-emailed one of those virtual promotional posters that are so popular on Facebook, list-serves, and the internet in general. Nothing unusual about that - I must average a dozen a day, not counting the ones with cats. But this one happened to contain a quote from something I wrote.
I guess I should feel honored, and I do. Pretty much. But . . . whoever copied it made a rather obvious and embarrassing typo. I'm sure my copy editor will throw his cup of coffee against the wall when it gets around to him.
Could be worse, I guess. The words could have been printed over a picture of a kitten.
Which way now for the LCS?
Is the Navy preparing to throw the towel in on the off-criticized LCS?
It's certainly starting to look like it. From a recent news report:
The LCS has been criticized for any number of reasons, but mostly its vulnerability to attack in a heavy combat situation - which, after all, is where warships are supposed to go. But in fairness, the "L" stands for littoral - as in shallow, as in coastal, as in waters near land rather than the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean . . . waters like, er, the Persian Gulf.
The LCS's mission requirements seem to have expanded to the point where it's looked at as a destroyer rather than a modern minesweeper or gunboat. The real problem here is that a) the Navy needs more destroyers, which the LCS can't replace, and b) the LCS is much more expensive than the ships traditionally used in littoral roles. The solution - build more destroyers, and much cheaper (but less flexible) littoral craft.
Is the Navy preparing to throw the towel in on the off-criticized LCS?
It's certainly starting to look like it. From a recent news report:
"Several 7th Fleet officials told us they thought the LCS in general might be better suited to operations in the Persian Gulf," said a Government Accountability Office report.Story.
GAO officials said the controversial LCS lacks the speed, range and electronic warfare capabilities to function in the geographic expanse that is the Pacific theater. As a result, the Navy should consider buying fewer LCS if the vessel is unable to perform in the Pacific, according to Bloomberg's report.
The LCS has been criticized for any number of reasons, but mostly its vulnerability to attack in a heavy combat situation - which, after all, is where warships are supposed to go. But in fairness, the "L" stands for littoral - as in shallow, as in coastal, as in waters near land rather than the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean . . . waters like, er, the Persian Gulf.
The LCS's mission requirements seem to have expanded to the point where it's looked at as a destroyer rather than a modern minesweeper or gunboat. The real problem here is that a) the Navy needs more destroyers, which the LCS can't replace, and b) the LCS is much more expensive than the ships traditionally used in littoral roles. The solution - build more destroyers, and much cheaper (but less flexible) littoral craft.
The IBM 360 . . .
. . . the computer that changed the world is fifty years old today.
Some of its history and impact is detailed here. The mainframe's descendants live on, as the story attests.
My dad worked on the 360, first on the hardware side and then later as a systems programmer and debugger. I remember him coming home with a thick stack of dot matrix paper filled with hexadecimal "dumps." He'd spend hours looking through the stacks for letters out of place that indicated bugs. We made giant paper airplanes when he was done.
. . . the computer that changed the world is fifty years old today.
Some of its history and impact is detailed here. The mainframe's descendants live on, as the story attests.
My dad worked on the 360, first on the hardware side and then later as a systems programmer and debugger. I remember him coming home with a thick stack of dot matrix paper filled with hexadecimal "dumps." He'd spend hours looking through the stacks for letters out of place that indicated bugs. We made giant paper airplanes when he was done.
Starred review
Our upcoming installment in the Dreamland series has been winning praise. Here's Publisher's Weekly:
The book goes on sale June 4.
(Hard to believe this is the 15th book in the series, actually. I'll have to think about that.)
Our upcoming installment in the Dreamland series has been winning praise. Here's Publisher's Weekly:
“In this 15th Dreamland aviation thriller (after 2012’s Collateral Damage), Brown and DeFelice are at the top of their game. At the Dreamland base, a top-secret development area in the Nevada desert, Capt. Turk Mako, a test pilot in the U.S. Air Force, is working on a new drone project. Dubbed “Hydra,” these “nano-UAVs” (or unmanned aerial vehicles) are the size of a “cheap desk calculator” and shaped like “a cross between lawn darts and studies for a video game.” When the U.S. government decides that Iran’s nuclear efforts must be thwarted, Turk and his swarm of tiny drones are selected for a covert attack. Turk flies to Iran, links up with a Delta Force team, and destroys an underground nuclear facility. While the mission is an initial success, readers will know that Turk’s work is not finished so easily. The pages fly by as fast as the quicksilver drones while Turk faces one exciting, life-threatening complication after another. This can be read either as a standalone or a gateway to the rest of the Dreamland books.”
The book goes on sale June 4.
(Hard to believe this is the 15th book in the series, actually. I'll have to think about that.)
Russian "prowess" in Crimea
There has been a flush of articles, Tweets, and assorted "analyses" proclaiming that the takeover of Crimea demonstrated the overwhelming strength and prowess of the Russian army.
Give me a break. An organized Boy Scout would have looked just as good.
Forget the fact that the takeover was completely unopposed. Take a look at the equipment that was being brought into the country by train. (Main battle tanks two generations old.) Think about the actual numbers of soldiers there (forget the wildly exaggerated claims of hundreds of thousands). Look at what they did, and how they did it.
Now compare that with any of the Russian takeovers during the Cold War. Or think about what a Chechnya-like resistance (let alone something on the scale of Iraq) would have done.
Great propaganda victory, no question. And the Russian special forces continue to be well-trained, professional, and creative. Crimea is a great lesson in how to win without really fighting, even a case study in how to do more with less. But a statement about Russia's military prowess?
Not so much.
There has been a flush of articles, Tweets, and assorted "analyses" proclaiming that the takeover of Crimea demonstrated the overwhelming strength and prowess of the Russian army.
Give me a break. An organized Boy Scout would have looked just as good.
Forget the fact that the takeover was completely unopposed. Take a look at the equipment that was being brought into the country by train. (Main battle tanks two generations old.) Think about the actual numbers of soldiers there (forget the wildly exaggerated claims of hundreds of thousands). Look at what they did, and how they did it.
Now compare that with any of the Russian takeovers during the Cold War. Or think about what a Chechnya-like resistance (let alone something on the scale of Iraq) would have done.
Great propaganda victory, no question. And the Russian special forces continue to be well-trained, professional, and creative. Crimea is a great lesson in how to win without really fighting, even a case study in how to do more with less. But a statement about Russia's military prowess?
Not so much.
The 7 stages of being pissed off
1. Throw coffee cup.
2. Break furniture.
3. Punch walls.
4. Seek medical attention. *
5. Chop wood with very shop ax.
6. Drink heavily.
7. Mutter to self in public places.
Note that you never really get over being pissed off; the rage just simmers down into a seething but only semi-coherent resentment.
* - Stage 6 can be substituted here.
1. Throw coffee cup.
2. Break furniture.
3. Punch walls.
4. Seek medical attention. *
5. Chop wood with very shop ax.
6. Drink heavily.
7. Mutter to self in public places.
Note that you never really get over being pissed off; the rage just simmers down into a seething but only semi-coherent resentment.
* - Stage 6 can be substituted here.
Vanishing bookstores
Even in publishing's "capital"
It's pretty much old news that bookstores are an endangered species, but for what it's worth, the NY Times has a story today on the shrinking number of bookstores in Manhattan.
The story primarily focuses on high rents, which is certainly an important factor, especially in New York. But there are other facets, including the reality that stores are limited in the amount of money they can charge for each book, and at the same time can't hope to draw mass crowds of customers at all times. Competition from on-line stores and e-books have steadily driven the unit price of books down in real terms, and while this has hurt authors most, bookstores are along for the ride. Even with a friendly landlord, the overhead for small businesses can be frightfully high.
From the NY Times:
Rising rents in Manhattan have forced out many retailers, from pizza joints to flower shops. But the rapidly escalating cost of doing business there is also driving out bookstores, threatening the city’s sense of self as the center of the literary universe, the home of the publishing industry and a place that lures and nurtures authors and avid readers.
“Sometimes I feel as if I’m working in a field that’s disappearing right under my feet,” said the biographer and historian Robert Caro, who is a lifelong New Yorker.
The full story.
In the story, an agent is quoted wondering why publishers don't have their own bookstores. At one time, this would have been considered monopolistic; there were also the objections from "customers" - bookstores - to contend with. But it will probably happen at some point in the not too distant future.
Pakistan and bin Laden
The Sunday NY Times has an excerpt from a new book by Carlotta Gall that outlines the close working relationship and even sponsorship of al Qaeda by Pakistan. This included protecting bin Laden.
From the article:
Link.
While I realize that a lot of this has been well known to people who paid attention, I do have one question: Why did it take the mainstream media so long to publish a story like this?
That's not a criticism of the reporter, but the media bosses above her.And, to some extent, of American "officials" as well. Pakistan's "cooperation" in the wake of 9/11 has been far overvalued - even when the country actually helped the U.S.
I understand the role of "realpolitik" in the world; I just wish we played "real" more strongly than we play "politik".
The Sunday NY Times has an excerpt from a new book by Carlotta Gall that outlines the close working relationship and even sponsorship of al Qaeda by Pakistan. This included protecting bin Laden.
From the article:
The Pakistani government, under President Pervez Musharraf and his intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, was maintaining and protecting the Taliban, both to control the many groups of militants now lodged in the country and to use them as a proxy force to gain leverage over and eventually dominate Afghanistan. The dynamic has played out in ways that can be hard to grasp from the outside, but the strategy that has evolved in Pakistan has been to make a show of cooperation with the American fight against terrorism while covertly abetting and even coordinating Taliban, Kashmiri and foreign Qaeda-linked militants.
Link.
While I realize that a lot of this has been well known to people who paid attention, I do have one question: Why did it take the mainstream media so long to publish a story like this?
That's not a criticism of the reporter, but the media bosses above her.And, to some extent, of American "officials" as well. Pakistan's "cooperation" in the wake of 9/11 has been far overvalued - even when the country actually helped the U.S.
I understand the role of "realpolitik" in the world; I just wish we played "real" more strongly than we play "politik".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
