Never Bring a Rifle To A Missile Fight

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

A British base in southern Afghanistan was taking sniper fire, and they couldn’t spot the sniper immediately:

The reason for this was a clever gambit by the sniper, who was firing from a nearby compound, via a small tunnel dug through the wall of the compound, terminating in a 30×15 cm (12×6 inch) opening to fire out of. To further conceal his position, he had some nearby associates fire assault rifles and a machine-gun just before he took his shot at the British. To further conceal himself, the sniper only fired three times a day.

The British would not say how many soldiers the sniper hit, but the British quickly identified seven possible firing positions. The sniper was then tricked into firing again while the seven suspected sites were being observed, and this revealed the small hole in the wall as the location. A British Apache helicopter gunship was standing by, and it fired a Hellfire missile which, because of its laser guidance, hit the small firing hole, killing the sniper and one of his spotters.

Half of iPhones Brought to Genius Bar Have Never Been Synced

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

Rumor has it that half of the iPhones brought in to the Genius Bar have never been synced with a computer — which may explain Apple’s move to the iCloud, with its automated wi-fi sync and instant backup to the cloud.

Going Back to Single-Sex Dorms

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

John Garvey, the president of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., explains why they’re going back to single-sex dorms — because intellect and virtue are connected:

Here is one simple step colleges can take to reduce both binge drinking and hooking up: Go back to single-sex residences.

I know it’s countercultural. More than 90% of college housing is now co-ed. But Christopher Kaczor at Loyola Marymount points to a surprising number of studies showing that students in co-ed dorms (41.5%) report weekly binge drinking more than twice as often as students in single-sex housing (17.6%). Similarly, students in co-ed housing are more likely (55.7%) than students in single-sex dorms (36.8%) to have had a sexual partner in the last year — and more than twice as likely to have had three or more.

The point about sex is no surprise. The point about drinking is. I would have thought that young women would have a civilizing influence on young men. Yet the causal arrow seems to run the other way. Young women are trying to keep up — and young men are encouraging them (maybe because it facilitates hooking up).

Yeah, maybe drinking facilitates “hooking up”…

I’m a bit surprised a Catholic university ever moved away from single-sex dorms.

In my own not-at-all-Catholic university experience, the coed dorms seemed very forced, with everyone pretending that it was simultaneously perfectly natural yet nothing perfectly natural would come of it.

The dorm complex did have one all-male dorm though, filled with unfortunate souls, and one all-female dorm, filled with volunteers — or, at least, their parents volunteered them for it.

That all-male dorm had no House Mom or Drill Sergeant to knock some sense into the guys, so it rapidly descended into chaos — holes in the walls, anything and everything disposed of in those walls, etc.

The all-female dorm smelled like lavender.

Anyway, the young men became truly unruly, without any civilizing influences. The young women didn’t, but they weren’t a random sample — so I don’t know how valuable any stats on them might be.

Mark Zuckerberg’s New Challenge

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

Each year, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook chooses a new personal challenge:

To start, let me give you some background on what I’m doing. Every year in recent memory, I’ve taken on a personal challenge — something to learn about the world, expand my interests and teach myself greater discipline. I spend almost all of my time building Facebook, so these personal challenges are all things I wouldn’t normally have the chance to do if I didn’t take the time.

Last year, for example, my personal challenge was to learn Chinese. I blocked out an hour every day to study and it has been an amazing experience so far. I’ve always found learning new languages challenging, so I wanted to jump in and try to learn a hard one. It has been a very humbling experience. With language, there’s no way to just “figure it out” like you can with other problems — you just need to practice and practice. The experience of learning Mandarin has also led me to travel to China, learn about its culture and history, and meet a lot of new interesting people.

This year, my personal challenge is around being thankful for the food I have to eat. I think many people forget that a living being has to die for you to eat meat, so my goal revolves around not letting myself forget that and being thankful for what I have. This year I’ve basically become a vegetarian since the only meat I’m eating is from animals I’ve killed myself. So far, this has been a good experience. I’m eating a lot healthier foods and I’ve learned a lot about sustainable farming and raising of animals.

I started thinking about this last year when I had a pig roast at my house. A bunch of people told me that even though they loved eating pork, they really didn’t want to think about the fact that the pig used to be alive. That just seemed irresponsible to me. I don’t have an issue with anything people choose to eat, but I do think they should take responsibility and be thankful for what they eat rather than trying to ignore where it came from.

Killing and butchering your own meat has become quite trendy in the last few years.

Nonetheless, it invites righteous indignation — for some of the oddest reasons:

Zuckerberg’s choice feels less like an embrace of new sustainable food models, and more like a throwback to the days when nobles and their hounds chased hares across their estates — and killed any poachers who dared pilfer from nature’s bounty.
[...]
So basically all Zuckerberg is doing is killing the animals, under the watchful eye of a celebrity chef. He doesn’t actually deal with hunting, or the bloody aftermath (a special butcher in Santa Cruz handles that). Put this way, the whole endeavor sounds a lot creepier. Zuckerberg is just in it for the excitement of the kill, like many an aristocrat before him.
[...]
Killing your own meat, or at least knowing where that killing is “locally sourced,” seems less about getting closer to your food than getting closer to feeling like a member of a more savage ruling class from history. Back then, the elites killed people and torched villages to expand their property. Today’s elites stage sterile, bloodless hostile takeovers from the safety of their keyboards and smart phones.

Oh, those dastardly aristocrats!

Everything you’ve heard about fossil fuels may be wrong

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Everything you’ve heard about fossil fuels may be wrong, Michael Lind says:

As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.

Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.

The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.

If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.

The Lesson Plan

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

When I saw The Wave on TV as a kid, I didn’t realize that it was based on a real-life story — which has now been made into another movie, The Lesson Plan, which played at the Newport Beach Film Festival recently:

One day in 1967, a Palo Alto high school student asks his history teacher how the German people could have missed the signs of the ongoing genocide being perpetrated by the Nazis. This innocent question ignites an idea, and teacher Ron Jones launches a classroom “simulation,” or experiment, to illustrate how good Germans — how anyone — could fall prey to totalitarian thinking.

Forty years later, Philip Neel, one of the students who participated in that experiment dubbed The Third Wave, has produced a documentary, The Lesson Plan, featuring interviews with students who participated, and with teacher Ron Jones himself.

Jones reorganized his classroom that week into a simulation of a prototypical fascist youth group. He enforced physical discipline and uniformity in the students’ posture and speech per his first-day dictum, “Strength Through Discipline.” He meant it to end there, he now avers, but students were eager for more. He added more simplistic, effective sloganeering on the following days: strength through community, through action, through unity and finally through pride. Strength through Community meant, for instance, that students were to share grades. Top students helped the lower students. Jones was heartened by the increased level of participation of the weaker students, while he banished to the library for the remainder of the semester some more successful students — who of course resented lowering their grades so students who did not do the work could get higher grades.

Similarly, anyone who spoke against The Third Wave faced a mock trial and banishment. At Jones’s urging, students secretly “informed” on other students who spoke against the Third Wave, and the car club guys appointed themselves as Jones’s bodyguards. Jones found out only at the reunion that a few of these guys beat up a student journalist who was writing a non-flattering article on The Third Wave. When an outsider student asked a Third Waver to explain what they stood for, he could not give an answer.

As you might imagine, Jones had more than an academic interest in the exercise:

Jones went on to be denied tenure by this school because of his involvement in organizing radical student groups and was fired from two subsequent schools; an interview in the school paper in 1970 reveals Jones’s involvement in the Black Panthers and other radical politics of the day.

Blimp pilot dies saving passengers from fiery crash

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Airships have been haunted by the Hindenburg disaster for decades. The move away from hydrogen was supposed to mean an end to fiery crashes, but even a helium blimp can burn up:

Michael Nerandzic was trying to land a Goodyear blimp at an airfield in Reichelsheim, Germany, when his passengers, three journalists, smelled fuel and heard a loud noise from an engine, according to news reports, including one in the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, Australia.

Realizing the ship was in danger, Nerandzic lowered it to just two meters (6.5 feet) off the ground and told the journalists to jump, according to the news reports.

With the loss of ballast from the three passengers, the blimp shot up to 50 meters (165 feet) in the air, caught fire and then crashed.

Nerandzic, 53, had 18,000 hours of experience piloting airships over the past 26 years.

Could a Greek Default Destroy American Money Market Funds?

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Could a Greek default destroy American money market funds?, Megan McArdle asks:

During the wave of banking regulation that followed the Great Depression, the government slapped heavy controls on the interest rates that banks could offer. They weren’t very good, which made the banks sounder, and consumers worse off. When inflation and interest rates rose in the late sixties, this became a big problem. Then some clever chap came up with the money market fund. Legally it worked like an investment fund, not a bank account: you invested in shares, with each share priced at a dollar. The fund invested in the commercial paper market and committed to keep each share worth exactly one dollar; whatever investment return they got was paid out as interest on your shares. This gave you something that looked a lot like a bank account, without all the legal tsuris.

In 2008, it turns out that these money market accounts were–as was always pretty obvious–a lot more like bank accounts than mutual fund shares. The Reserve Primary fund held a lot of Lehmann Brothers commercial paper, which plunged close to zero, meaning that there were no longer enough assets in the fund to make all the shares worth at least a dollar. This is known as “breaking the buck”, and it was not the first time it had happened. But it was the first time in more than a decade that it had happened at a fund which didn’t have enough money to top up the assets in the fund to bring them back to a value of $1. Bigger investment houses had been quietly topping up their money market funds for month, but Reserve Primary was a smaller firm, and they didn’t have the spare cash handy.

This triggered a run on the money markets, which the government really only stopped by a) passing TARP and b) guaranteeing money market funds.

Wait, what does it mean to make a run on a mutual fund that holds short-term paper?

As I’ve said before, with no notion of first-come, first-served, a fund’s in no danger of a run; its shares simply drop in value when its assets drop in value. It’s comparatively stable, since no one has an incentive to make matters worse for other investors in order to save their own skin.

The Middleman’s There for a Reason

Monday, June 13th, 2011

In “The Drift from Domesticity” (collected into The Thing and his collected works), G.K. Chesterton makes a Burkean point that bears repeating:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease.

But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Megan McArdle cites this passage while discussing how finding good drugs is harder than it sounds — and cutting out Big Pharma won’t get good drugs to market faster:

The op-ed or magazine piece claiming that the “real” pharmaceutical research is all done in government and university labs, with pharma just swooping in at the end to smack a label on the thing and stack all their money in neat piles, is an evergreen. The truth is that the human body is complicated, finding good drugs is hard, and the regulatory hurdles make it harder every year.

In general, be skeptical of arguments that there are fabulous savings in money and efficiency to be gained by “eliminating the middleman”. The phrase is a favorite with infomercial hucksters for a reason — it’s the sort of thing that sounds really plausible and intuitive. But in fact, since most people don’t like paying more than they have to for their goods and services, and producers do not willingly give up a share of the profits, if there’s a middleman in a market, he’s usually there for a reason.

Of course, sometimes that reason goes away. The computers that are replacing travel and real estate agents, for example, are arguably delivering better service at lower cost, and I expect that both professions will eventually reconstitute themselves as consultants for those who want them — advising buyers on neighborhoods and carrying costs, helping sellers file the correct paperwork and set the price.

But you shouldn’t get excited about replacing the middleman unless you understand what function they serve, and have a plausible plan for replacing it.
[...]
Midlemen are usually performing some valuable service for either customer or producer, or more usually both: price discovery, or bundling, or branding/quality assurance, or knowledge of local markets, or convenience, or some other expertise — something that makes producers willing to give them a cut of the profits. The proponents of the “real research” story seem to believe that in the case of pharma, that service is simply greed — academics are too busy doing the important research to bother themselves with trifles.

Not Really Accidents

Sunday, June 12th, 2011

Most accidental discharges are not really accidents, Michael Yon points out:

The bullet flies because there was a round in the chamber, the safety was disengaged, and the trigger was pulled, probably by a right index finger. Dropping a US military pistol or rifle will not make it shoot. Using the weapons as a hammer is a bad idea, but they still will not shoot unless something crucial is broken, which is rare. The weapons will not fire accidentally so long as the user never deviates from simple procedures.

During an infantry exercise in US, a unit was training with live ammunition. A soldier did not follow procedure by failing to put his safety on when moving. He fired a bullet, which struck Colonel David Petraeus in the back. Petraeus nearly died.

There were at least four mistakes:

  1. Weapon not on safe.
  2. Finger on trigger.
  3. Finger pulled trigger.
  4. Muzzle pointed in unsafe direction.

Had any one of these procedures been followed, General Petraeus would not have been shot.

  • I was with Lithuanian soldiers when I heard a BANG. A nearby soldier was preparing to clean his weapon and it “went off.” It went off because there was a round in the chamber, the safety was off and he pulled trigger.
  • I was with Iraqi forces when… Never mind. Too many to remember. Same with Afghans. Not all armies are well trained. But we are not talking about their rules.
  • I was with British forces in Sangin, Afghanistan. I was talking on the sat-phone when BANG! Big commotion. A soldier about to clean his weapon shot his buddy who nearly died and is today messed up for life.
  • Canadian Brigadier General Daniel Menard was preparing to board a US helicopter in 2010 in Kandahar. He fired a couple rounds that missed everyone and the helicopter.

The weapons don’t fire magically unless they are very hot due to heavy firing.

All of the above incidents illustrate sloppiness. Some forces are sloppier than others.

A Tale of Two Airships

Saturday, June 11th, 2011

Nevil Shute made his name as a novelist, but in his day job he worked as an aeronautical engineer — where he went by his full name, Nevil Shute Norway.

As an aeronautical engineer in the early days of flight, he worked on both heavier-than-air airplanes and lighter-than-air airships. One of the more colorful episodes in his career was a tale of two airships — one Capitalist and one Socialist:

The reason for creating these two leviathans has never been entirely clear. At the time some thought they were for long-range reconnaissance by the Admiralty or the embryo Royal Air Force. Others saw them as civil vessels on a new imperial airship service that would forge closer links with Britain’s disparate and increasingly troublesome Empire, especially India. An imperial airships service had certainly been mooted. But when Ramsay Macdonald’s government came to power in 1924 the plan was hijacked by Lord Christopher Birdwood Thomson, the suavely ambitious air minister and close friend of Britain’s first Labour prime minister, who sanctioned two new vessels – a state and a private ship. The R101, sponsored by the government, was named the Socialist by the newspapers. Her sister vessel, the R100, was called the Capitalist. A bitter rivalry existed between the two camps and their construction was mired in controversy.
[...]
Burney’s R100 was designed by Barnes Wallis, later to enjoy a stellar career as an aeronautical designer whose many creations included the Wellington bomber and the bouncing bombs that destroyed the Mohne, Eder and Sorpe dams in the German Ruhr. Wallis’s chief calculator, a crucial engineering role in building an airship, was Nevil Norway Shute, who subsequently achieved global recognition as the novelist Nevil Shute. His semi-biographical book Slide Rule (1954) was deeply critical of the R101.

Airships had a calamitous record. An exception was the R34 which flew successfully to America and back in 1919 – with Scott at the helm. But in 1921 the R38, which Britain had sold to the United States, broke up over the Humber near Hull. Of the 49 aboard 44 perished, many of them young Americans. The inquiry found that basic calculations about load and aerodynamic stress had not been considered. Determined not to repeat the errors of the R38 Thomson insisted R101 would be the safest airship ever built. No expense was spared. State money was poured into it. Boffins and committees pored over every aspect.

The R101 was powered by diesel engines, judged without evidence to be safer in the tropics because diesel has a lower flash point than petrol. However, its five engines were catastrophically heavy and reduced the lift of the ship. The R101 was so overweight that shortly before the voyage it had to be chopped in half and a huge new bay inserted so it could carry more hydrogen to give it greater lift. Yet the valves and wiring created by Rope needed further testing. The wiring’s effectiveness depended on how tight the gas bags were fastened in place but the wires were loosened so bags could be expanded to take more hydrogen, a move which badly compromised Rope’s design.

Not only was the airship inherently heavy but it was further burdened with champagne, china and silverware, loaded aboard for an aerial banquet planned for dignitaries as the ship hovered over Ismalia in Egypt en route to India. The bulkiest item was a huge Axminster carpet carried at Thomson’s insistence. He regarded this as a good luck charm, as he did another item which he took everywhere with him: a red shoe left behind by his lover Princess Bibesco in a taxi he had once shared with her.

Thomson had staked his career on R101’s success. His credibility and that of Ramsay Macdonald’s government depended on it. The weight of ego which sailed that autumn night was immeasurable.

Before R101 departed Rope had sent a note expressing serious doubts about the strength of the airship’s cover. His warning went unheeded. An aviation inspector meanwhile refused to grant a full airworthiness certificate. He wanted to check for rust beneath thousands of pads installed as a stop-gap to prevent the rupture of gas bags from chafing on the steel skeleton. His request was ignored.

The ship was so leaden that, when she departed her mooring tower at Cardington in the early evening of October 4th, ‘Bird’ Irwin had to jettison thousands of gallons of water ballast to try to lift her nose into the sky. The weather soon closed in. Drizzle turned to teeming rain. She was buffeted by strong headwinds clawing at her vast cover. Lacking lift and performance she staggered through the night sky. Witnesses on the ground were alarmed at how low she was. It was the most ambitious voyage ever undertaken by an airship, let alone one which had never been properly tested in such foul weather.

As darkness enveloped the ship her passengers enjoyed a fine supper. The wine flowed. Scott told his sterling yarns, the time years before when he had scared his passenger, Barnes Wallis, clipping an airship shed in thick fog, after which Wallis said he would never fly in an airship again. Perhaps Brancker brought laughter by swallowing his monocle. After supper there were cigars and brandy in the asbestos-proofed smoking room. Inches above their heads enough explosive hydrogen swilled around to take out a town. The last message from the ship was that the passengers had retired to their cabins for a good night’s rest, exhausted but exhilarated after the excitement of the day.

Eight hours after embarkation R101 crashed slowly – her speed estimated at less than 13 miles an hour – into a hillside near Beauvais in northern France. She had covered barely 200 miles of her 4,400 mile voyage. Within seconds she was consumed by a hydrogen conflagration. Of 54 aboard 48 died. Of these 46 perished immediately including Scott, Brancker, Rope, Atherstone, Irwin and Thomson. There was nothing left at the crash site but a blackened skeleton, a vast tangle of steel, looking like the cremated remains of a prehistoric mammoth.

The inquiry into the disaster was chaired by Sir John Simon, a lawyer and politician. It was a whitewash with government guff left unchallenged. There had never been an aerial catastrophe on such a scale. With hindsight it is clear the lawyers and analysts were effectively making up procedures and assumptions as they went along. Most of the expert witnesses who might have been called to give evidence had been killed. No real reason was ever found for the calamity. The one accepted down the years is that the cover, having been found to be permeable and weak, should have been replaced in its entirety before the voyage. In fact it had only been patched at the nose, the area which would have taken the full force of a driving headwind. Elsewhere much of the cover was new, but for unfathomable reasons the original material had been repaired rather than replaced at its most vulnerable point.

With the cover ripped at the nose, rain would have poured in, making the forward gas bags sodden and permeable leading to their total collapse. The ship would have been uncontrollably heavy at the bow and forced down towards the earth. What caused the inferno remains a mystery. Many airships had made forced landings over the years. In the First World War it was a common occurrence. But contrary to popular opinion few burst into flames and most of the crew were able to scramble clear relatively unscathed. But any spark, clearly, would have been enough to trigger the conflagration.

The R101 should never have sailed. She was simply not ready. She bristled with novel technology, much of which was insufficiently tested. Thomson and ministry officials at Cardington must take their share of the blame. Stark warnings by professionals were ignored. Thomson was determined to stick to his timetable, to make a spectacular entrance into India and to return in time for an Imperial Conference in London. Functionaries and acolytes had been afraid to stand up to him.

The calamity finished British airship production. Barnes Wallis and Nevil Shute’s R100 was broken up in her shed by the government, doubtless piqued by the abject failure of its own ship. It could not tolerate the success of the ‘Capitalist’ R100 while the ‘Socialist’ R101 had ended in catastrophe. R100’s skeleton was sold for scrap for £400.

There is no word in German for “small talk”

Friday, June 10th, 2011

Professor Juliane House, of the University of Hamburg, has studied German v British manners:

She found (or verified) that Germans really don’t do small talk, those little phrases so familiar to the British about the weather or a person’s general well-being, but which she describes as “empty verbiage”.

There is no word in German for “small talk”

In academic language, this is “phatic” conversation — it’s not meant to convey hard information but to perform some social function, such as making people feel good.

The German language doesn’t even have an expression for “small talk”, she says. It is so alien that in the German translation of A Bear called Paddington — Paddington unser kleiner Baer — it was omitted.

So this exchange of small talk occurs in the English original: “‘Hallo Mrs Bird,’ said Judy. ‘It’s nice to see you again. How’s the rheumatism?’ ‘Worse than it’s ever been’ began Mrs. Bird.”

In the German edition, this passage is simply cut.

Might a German talk about the weather, then?

But small talk is a staple of social interaction in the UK

“In a lift or a doctor’s waiting room, talk about the weather in German? I don’t think so,” she says.

So does that mean the British are more polite? No, just different.

For their part, the British have what House calls the “etiquette of simulation”. The British feign an interest in someone. They pretend to want to meet again when they don’t really. They simulate concern.

Saying things like “It’s nice to meet you” are rarely meant the way they are said, she says. “It’s just words. It’s simulating interest in the other person.”

From a German perspective, this is uncomfortably close to deceit.

“Some people say that the British and Americans lie when they say things like that. It’s not a lie. It’s lubricating social life. It’s always nice to say things like that even if you don’t mean them,” says House.

Face transplant performed on woman mauled by chimpanzee

Friday, June 10th, 2011

Charla Nash, the woman who was mauled last year by her friend’s 200-pound chimpanzee, Travis, has received a full face transplant, the third such surgery performed in the US, at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital:

Nash’s face was rebuilt last month by a medical team of more than 30 physicians, nurses, anesthesiologists and residents, the hospital announced on Friday.

Working for more than 20 hours, the team replaced Nash’s nose, lips, facial skin, muscles of facial animation and nerves.

It’s not all good news:

The hospital said a double hand transplant was also attempted, but the hands did not thrive and were removed.

Pirates vs. Yachts

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

The Capricorn is one of 133 yachts to sail near the Horn of Africa so far this year — and one of three to get attacked by Somali pirates:

In February, four Americans were killed after pirates hijacked their yacht, the Quest, off Oman. That same month pirates seized seven Danes, including three teenagers, from their yacht ING.

The attack on the Capricorn had a happy ending:

It was high morning in the middle of the Arabian sea, more than 600 miles (960km) from land, when the pirates struck the Capricorn.

The Somali marauders opened fire on the 22m (72ft) yacht, then clambered aboard as the Dutch captain and engineer took refuge in the engine room.

Meanwhile, a team of armed Ukrainian guards on a 42m former naval vessel hired as an escort returned fire, then came alongside the Capricorn. A guard jumped aboard and raised his weapon, and the pirates fled aboard their skiff.

The boats suffered only minor damage and the crew were uninjured.

“They were, of course, in a bit of shock,” said Thomas Jakobsson, chief of operations for Naval Guards, the Cardiff-based company that supplied the escort ship.

“If you’re not used to having people shoot at you — and I guess even if you are — it’s always an unpleasant experience.”

The experts compare sailing around the Horn of Africa to bicycle-camping in Afghanistan. It’s not a good idea.

Computers Ruin Things

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

Computers are useful, Scott Locklin notes, but computers also ruin a lot of things:

For example: cars. I used to work on cars. Cars are cool machines: they work via hydraulics, gears and fire, more or less. Modern cars unquestionably have many advantages over cars made when I was born; they’re safer, faster and cleaner. They’re also impossible to repair, have more stuff which breaks, and generally embody planned obsolescence. Does anyone believe a modern Benz will be able to drive for 1,000,000 miles the way old ones regularly would? I don’t.

Is this an improvement? Well, what I’d really like is a simple old style car with an air bag and slightly better fuel injectors. It’s not impossible to do. Will anyone do this? I doubt it. There is more money to be made using the razorblade model and so, people will continue paying for overpriced garbage with… “technology” in it. Meanwhile, people still drive W-123 cars with 3/4 of a million miles on ‘em: made in an era when people still believed in old fashioned engineering, and didn’t put so much faith in computer doodads.

More importantly, computers have ruined the design process:

Revolutionary jets like the SR-71 or the 747 took months to design. Regular evolutionary developments like the F-35 or 787 seem to take decades. Why do you suppose this is? I think it’s because people are screwing around in CAD and finite element analysis programs far too much, and not, you know, designing stuff. I’ve seen this at work in my days at LBNL.

The “correct way” to get parts made for experimental apparatus is to get a CAD engineer to design it in SolidDesigner over the course of several days. Then the CAD goes to a CAM machinist, who will eventually send it back to the CAD engineer pointing out the 11 ways in which making this object is impossible without resorting to EDM. If you’re lucky and bother everyone on a regular basis, you’ll get your part in a few months. Then it won’t fit because the designer didn’t bother to come look at the machinery it’s supposed to bolt to. Why should he? He has the “engineering drawings” for the rest of the thing! Of course, electrical “drawings” on a computer are not solid objects, so the damn thing often won’t fit.

The other way to do it is to grab some blue collar Navy dude with a greying moustache, tell him what you want; he comes and looks at everything with a tape measure and have him deliver it to you, freshly machined from aluminum and 304 steel in a couple of days time. Sure, it will be uglier, chunkier and bigger, but it will work, generally the first time. If it doesn’t, he’ll scratch his moustache, go away and make it work the second time ’round by filing something away or drilling a new hole in the thing.