Lockheed Martin Pioneers Ocean Energy in China

Tuesday, August 20th, 2013

Lockheed is designing a 10-megawatt pilot ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plant off the coast of southern China, for a private Chinese company that develops resorts and luxury housing:

Lockheed won’t release the cost of the project, but outside experts estimate that a 10-MW facility would cost roughly US $300 million to $500 million. However, experts say that a full-scale 100-MW plant would be more competitive at just $1.2 billion.

Temperature Differentials between Warm Surface Waters and Cold Deep Waters

OTEC systems make use of the temperature differential in tropical areas between warm surface water and cold deep water. In most systems, ammonia, which has a very low boiling point, passes through a heat exchanger containing the warm water. The ammonia is vaporized and used to turn a turbine, and then it’s cycled past the cold water to recondense. This is a renewable energy technology with the rare capacity to supply base-load power, as water temperatures are fairly stable.

The ammonia passes through a closed loop, while the water comes and goes through massive pipes. The project in China may pump cold water up from a depth of about 1000 meters, using a pipe that’s 4 meters across. Varley says that some of the infrastructure can be borrowed from the offshore drilling industry: “We showed them our requirements for the platform, and they yawned and said, ‘Is that all you got?’ ” he says. “But then we showed them the pipe.” Attaching the massive pipe to a relatively small floating platform creates unusual stresses, Varley says. Lockheed also had to find materials for the pipes and the heat exchangers that could withstand the harsh marine environment.

The concept goes back to the 1880s, but harnessing such small temperature differentials — 20–25 degrees Celsius — has proven challenging. Early OTEC systems were 1–3 percent thermally efficient; the theoretical maximum is 6–7 percent.

AK-47 Underwater

Monday, August 19th, 2013

This high-speed video of an AK-47 firing underwater is pretty impressive:

I liked the explanation near the end.

Naturally, when he pointed out that the bullet only went five or six feet — let’s call it one fathom — I thought of the APS Underwater Assault Rifle, designed to solve that problem — and then he closed by mentioning that his next video would feature Russian frog-man guns!

(Hat tip à mon père.)

Three-soda-a-day sugar habit could be toxic

Monday, August 19th, 2013

It’s hard to believe, I know, but a three-soda-a-day sugar habit could be toxic:

Researchers found that male mice fed a diet with 25 percent extra sugar — equivalent to about an additional three cans of soda a day in humans — were less likely to defend their territory and reproduce, while female mice on the same diet died at twice the normal rate.

Oddly, they didn’t get fat.

Robots to the Rescue

Monday, August 19th, 2013

So, why is Japan obsessed with giant robots?

From War of the Worlds and The Day the Earth Stood Still to Independence Day and Battlestar Galactica, high-tech alien invaders have been a constant theme in American entertainment. But Japan actually grappled with such existential threats firsthand. Putting it another way, you could say Japan has been living in a science-fiction world since the day Perry first appeared.

The humiliation of realizing how far they’d fallen behind fueled a race to modernize. Within less than a century, Japan would manage to defeat a Western power at sea in the 1904–05 Russo-Japanese War and be defeated itself in 1945 by an unfathomably powerful new weapon in World War II. Success and failure, life and death, all of it riding on whoever possessed the better scientists and engineers.

Robots came to the literal rescue when Japan began rebuilding its shattered infrastructure in the late 1940s and early ’50s. Retooling what had been weapons factories into toy factories turned out to be a quick way to jump-start the economy. Tin robot toys, the earliest made out of cans discarded by the Occupation forces, represented some of Japan’s first exports abroad after the end of the war.

In fact, the toys are the real key to understanding Japan’s robot obsession. The great majority of classic robot characters from the 1970s and ’80s were the brainchildren of toy companies. Toy companies paid anime studios to create television shows, then paid TV stations for the airtime and the right to air advertisements during the shows. The first and most influential, “Mazinger Z,” debuted in 1972 to instant success.

This marketing gambit proved so profitable that dozens of companies leapt into the fray. (It’s actually illegal in the U.S., where the Federal Communications Commission specifically prohibits advertisers from airing ads for a show’s merchandise during the show itself.) By 1977, no fewer than 12 different giant-robot shows aired on Japanese TV every single week, glorious robot-on-robot action matched only by the glorious ads for the toys the shows were created to hawk in the first place. So far, more than 100 series featuring giant robots have been produced.

Harlock Opening

Sunday, August 18th, 2013

I don’t know the original Captain Harlock, but the opening 12 minutes of the new movie seem… cool:

Edit: So, it looks like that video got pulled. This trailer gives some idea of what to expect:

On the Set of Destination Moon

Sunday, August 18th, 2013

In 1950, a live television interview on the set of Destination Moon was captured on kinescope. The interview features George Pal, Robert A. Heinlein, and Chesley Bonestell:

The film appears to be available on YouTube — with embedding disabled.

(Hat tip to Ron Miller at io9.)

Gang Shooting

Saturday, August 17th, 2013

The takeaway from this gang shooting video is to avoid stupid places, stupid people, and stupid things:

Watch the video again and try to spot two pre-assault indicators:

The “look around” is a huge indicator. Prior to initiating an attack, a predator is likely to look around for witnesses, cops, and escape routes. I’ve seen this happen myself many times.

The second indicator is what my friend Craig Douglas calls a “grooming cue”. Touching the face, neck, or head is a body action that shows nervousness or deception. Watch as the shooter touches the side of his face. That’s a grooming cue and it’s a sign that the attack is very close to happening.

If our wounded bystander would have picked up those cues, he would have bought himself a few extra seconds. I don’t know if it matters much, but I’ll take any advantage I can get.

Podcasts and the Violence Trap

Friday, August 16th, 2013

Our Slovenian guest recently asked me if I listen to any podcasts, and I do, but not consistently; my listening waxes and wanes.

The one podcast I’ve more or less kept up with is EconTalk. The most recent episode with Barry Weingast was rather dry but dealt with an important idea, that many nations are stuck in a violence trap: there is a surprising amount of violent regime change in modern times — and an unsurprisingly large amount in pre-modern times — and the threat of violence encourages leaders to create monopolies and other unproductive policies to pay off special interests that would otherwise threaten a coup or revolution.

(I also listen to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, The History of Rome, 12 Byzantine Rulers, and Norman Centuries.)

The Wind Rises with English Subtitles

Friday, August 16th, 2013

The trailer for Miyazaki’s new film, The Wind Rises, now has English subtitles:

Monkey Prison

Friday, August 16th, 2013

Blowhard, Esq. graduated from a monkey prison — or simian reeducation center:

In 1972, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, the fourth installment in the series, was released. When the film begins, humans have enslaved the apes but during the course of the movie, the apes rise up in revolution against their oppressors. There may be some deeper moral or subtext about racism and bigotry, but I can’t be sure. All I know is, when they needed some buildings to portray a sterile dystopia, they logically chose the recently-completed University of California Irvine campus, which happens to my undergraduate alma mater. I took some screencaps from the movie then went over there today for a short then-and-now comparison.

He compares before and after photos:

UCI-libraries1-before

UCI-libraries1-now

How Old Are Your Ears?

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

How old are your ears?

Neill Blomkamp Fools the Critics Again

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium isn’t as interesting as his history of fooling the critics:

I’ve read over a hundred reviews of Blomkamp’s two movies, and virtually no critic has noticed that he does not share their worldview.

Not at all.

Blomkamp’s 2009 Best Picture-nominated District 9, in which the black residents of his native Johannesburg demand that their black-run government clear out millions of feckless illegal space aliens, was universally praised by American critics as an apartheid allegory. Yet Blomkamp has relentlessly insisted in interviews that it’s really about “the collapse of Zimbabwe and the flood of illegal immigrants into South Africa, and then how you have impoverished black South Africans in conflict with the immigrants.”

Similarly, Elysium is another Malthusian tale about open borders, set in a dystopian 2154. By then, Los Angeles has been completely overrun by Mexicans, who have turned it into an endless, dusty slum that looks remarkably like urban Mexico today. (Blomkamp filmed for four months in Mexico City.)

[...]

Blomkamp, a gun-loving Afrikaner whose movies are based around his fear that the rapid breeding of Third Worlders threatens to bring down civilization, says Elysium originated in a disastrous visit to Mexico in 2005. While shooting a Nike commercial in lovely San Diego, the Boer crossed the border one evening to see Tijuana, where he was abducted by corrupt Mexican cops who shook him down for $900 in return for not killing him.

Despite the obviousness of Blomkamp’s parable about Mexican immigration’s catastrophic effects, Elysium has been universally interpreted as preaching the need for amnesty, open borders, and Obamacare.

Sailer also mentions John Milius and Christopher Nolan.

19 true things generals can’t say in public about the Afghan war

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Tom Ricks shares 19 true things generals can’t say in public about the Afghan war:

  1. Pakistan is now an enemy of the United States.
  2. We don’t know why we are here, what we are fighting for, or how to know if we are winning.
  3. The strategy is to fight, talk, and build. But we’re withdrawing the fighters, the Taliban won’t talk, and the builders are corrupt.
  4. Karzai’s family is especially corrupt.
  5. We want President Karzai gone but we don’t have a Pushtun successor handy.
  6. But the problem isn’t corruption, it is which corrupt people are getting the dollars. We have to help corruption be more fair.
  7. Another thing we’ll never stop here is the drug traffic, so the counternarcotics mission is probably a waste of time and resources that just alienates a swath of Afghans.
  8. Making this a NATO mission hurt, not helped. Most NATO countries are just going through the motions in Afghanistan as the price necessary to keep the US in Europe
  9. Yes, the exit deadline is killing us.
  10. Even if you got a deal with the Taliban, it wouldn’t end the fighting.
  11. The Taliban may be willing to fight forever. We are not.
  12. Yes, we are funding the Taliban, but hey, there’s no way to stop it, because the truck companies bringing goods from Pakistan and up the highway across Afghanistan have to pay off the Taliban. So yeah, your tax dollars are helping Mullah Omar and his buddies. Welcome to the neighborhood.
  13. Even non-Taliban Afghans don’t much like us.
  14. Afghans didn’t get the memo about all our successes, so they are positioning themselves for the post-American civil war .
  15. And they’re not the only ones getting ready. The future of Afghanistan is probably evolving up north now as the Indians, Russians and Pakistanis jockey with old Northern Alliance types. Interestingly, we’re paying more and getting less than any other player.
  16. Speaking of positioning for the post-American civil war, why would the Pakistanis sell out their best proxy shock troops now?
  17. The ANA and ANP could break the day after we leave the country.
  18. We are ignoring the advisory effort and fighting the “big war” with American troops, just as we did in Vietnam. And the U.S. military won’t act any differently until and work with the Afghan forces seriously until when American politicians significantly draw down U.S. forces in country-when it may be too damn late.
  19. The situation American faces in Afghanistan is similar to the one it faced in Vietnam during the Nixon presidency: A desire a leave and turn over the war to our local allies, combined with the realization that our allies may still lose, and the loss will be viewed as a U.S. defeat anyway.

Jackson Browne’s Teakettle

Wednesday, August 14th, 2013

Glenn Frey explains how he learned to write songs — by listening to Jackson Browne, who lived in the room below his:

I didn’t really know how to write songs. I knew I wanted to write songs, but I didn’t know exactly, did you just wait around for inspiration, you know, what was the deal? I learned through Jackson’s ceiling and my floor exactly how to write songs, ’cause Jackson would get up, and he’d play the first verse and first course, and he’d play it 20 times, until he had it just the way he wanted it. And then there’d be silence, and then I’d hear the teapot going off again, and it would be quiet for 20 minutes, and then I’d hear him start to play again … and I’m up there going, so that’s how you do it? Elbow grease. Time. Thought. Persistence.

David Mamet’s Master Class Memo to the Writers of The Unit

Wednesday, August 14th, 2013

Executive producer David Mamet wrote this memo to the writers working on The Unit:

To the writers of the unit:

Greetings.

As we learn how to write this show, a recurring problem becomes clear.

The problem is this: to differentiate between drama and non-drama. Let me break it down now.

Everyone in creation is screaming at us to make the show clear. We are tasked with, it seems, cramming a shitload of information into a little bit of time.

Our friends. The penguins, think that we, therefore, are employed to communicate information — and, so, at times, it seems to us.

But note:the audience will not tune in to watch information. You wouldn’t, I wouldn’t. No one would or will. The audience will only tune in and stay tuned to watch drama.

Question:what is drama? Drama, again, is the quest of the hero to overcome those things which prevent him from achieving a specific, acute goal.

So: we, the writers, must ask ourselves of every scene these three questions.

1) Who wants what?
2) What happens if they don’t get it?
3) Why now?

The answers to these questions are litmus paper. Apply them, and their answer will tell you if the scene is dramatic or not.

If the scene is not dramatically written, it will not be dramatically acted.

There is no magic fairy dust which will make a boring, useless, redundant, or merely informative scene after it leaves your typewriter. You the writers, are in charge of making sure every scene is dramatic.

This means all the “little” expositional scenes of two people talking about a third. This bushwah (and we all tend to write it on the first draft) is less than useless, should it finally, god forbid, get filmed.

If the scene bores you when you read it, rest assured it will bore the actors, and will, then, bore the audience, and we’re all going to be back in the breadline.

Someone has to make the scene dramatic. It is not the actors job (the actors job is to be truthful). It is not the director’s job. His or her job is to film it straightforwardly and remind the actors to talk fast. It is your job.

Every scene must be dramatic. That means: the main character must have a simple, straightforward, pressing need which impels him or her to show up in the scene.

This need is why they came. It is what the scene is about. Their attempt to get this need met will lead, at the end of the scene,to failure — this is how the scene is over. It, this failure, will, then, of necessity, propel us into the next scene.

All these attempts, taken together, will, over the course of the episode, constitute the plot.

Any scene, thus, which does not both advance the plot, and standalone (that is, dramatically, by itself, on its own merits) is either superfluous, or incorrectly written.

Yes but yes but yes but, you say: what about the necessity of writing in all that “information?”

And I respond “figure it out.” Any dickhead with a blue suit can be (and is) taught to say “make it clearer” and “I want to know more about him”.

When you’ve made it so clear that even this blue-suited penguin is happy, both you and he or she will be out of a job.

The job of the dramatist is to make the audience wonder what happens next, not to explain to them what just happened, or to suggest to them what happens next.

Any dickhead, as above, can write, “but, Jim, if we don’t assassinate the prime minister in the next scene, all Europe will be engulfed in flame.”

We are not getting paid to realize that the audience needs this information to understand the next scene, but to figure out how to write the scene before us such that the audience will be interested in what happens next.

Yes but, yes but yes but you reiterate.

And I respond figure it out.

How does one strike the balance between withholding and vouchsafing information? That is the essential task of the dramatist. And the ability to do that is what separates you from the lesser species in their blue suits.

Figure it out.

Start, every time, with this inviolable rule: the scene must be dramatic. It must start because the hero has a problem, and it must culminate with the hero finding him or herself either thwarted or educated that another way exists.

Look at your log lines. Any logline reading “Bob and Sue discuss…” is not describing a dramatic scene.

Please note that our outlines are, generally, spectacular. The drama flows out between the outline and the first draft.

Think like a filmmaker rather than a functionary, because, in truth, you are making the film. What you write, they will shoot.

Here are the danger signals. Any time two characters are talking about a third, the scene is a crock of shit.

Any time any character is saying to another “as you know”, that is, telling another character what you, the writer, need the audience to know, the scene is a crock of shit.

Do not write a crock of shit. Write a ripping three, four, seven minute scene which moves the story along, and you can, very soon, buy a house in Bel Air and hire someone to live there for you.

Remember you are writing for a visual medium. Most television writing, ours included, sounds like radio. The camera can do the explaining for you. Let it. What are the characters doing — literally. What are they handling, what are they reading. What are they watching on television, what are they seeing.

If you pretend the characters can’t speak and write a silent movie, you will be writing great drama.

If you deprive yourself of the crutch of narration, exposition, indeed, of speech. You will be forged to work in a new medium — telling the story in pictures (also known as screenwriting)

This is a new skill. No one does it naturally. You can train yourselves to do it, but you need to start.

I close with the one thought: look at the scene and ask yourself “is it dramatic? Is it essential? Does it advance the plot?

Answer truthfully.

If the answer is “no” write it again or throw it out. If you’ve got any questions, call me up.

Love, Dave Mamet

Santa Monica 19 October 05

(It is not your responsibility to know the answers, but it is your, and my, responsibility to know and to ask the right questions over and over. Until it becomes second nature. I believe they are listed above.)