AOL using Xdrive to offer free space - Los Angeles Business from bizjournals:
A couple of years ago, I tried using a free online storage service. It worked OK, but uploads were fairly slow (which probably says more about Australia's pathetically slow internet services than the storage service itself.) The free service I tried was soon stopped and became subscription only.
AOL is now to offer 5 GB free to everyone. How nice. Will it last?
Monday, August 07, 2006
Lightning and stupidity
NOAA News Online (Story 2676)
Opinion Dominion has strong views on how stupid people can be about lightning. A future post will detail one particularly good example of this from first hand experience. In the meantime, the NOAA (see link) warns people not to be stupid. It won't work.
Opinion Dominion has strong views on how stupid people can be about lightning. A future post will detail one particularly good example of this from first hand experience. In the meantime, the NOAA (see link) warns people not to be stupid. It won't work.
Carbon offsets offset
Carbon offsets | Sins of emission | Economist.com
The short piece from the Economist about carbon offset problems is worth a look. Mind you, The Economist still thinks that in general they are a good idea in theory. The problem is in the implementation.
The short piece from the Economist about carbon offset problems is worth a look. Mind you, The Economist still thinks that in general they are a good idea in theory. The problem is in the implementation.
Further co-operation from Iran
Defiant Iran threatens to use 'oil weapon' against sanctions - World - Times Online
From the above:
In a blunt response to international concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator on atomic issues, said that Tehran was ready for a showdown with world powers when the matter was taken up by the UN Security Council this month.
“We will expand nuclear technology at whatever stage it may be necessary and all of Iran’s nuclear technology including the [centrifuge] cascades will be expanded,” he said in Tehran.
The announcement was regarded not simply as another rhetorical outburst from Tehran but rather the precursor of a formal reply to the West which will be delivered in full on August 22....
Mr Larijani said yesterday that Iran had a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to build a civilian nuclear programme. He said Iran was planning to expand its operations at the heavily-guarded Natanz facility in central Iran, where the authorities hope to have 3,000 centrifuges — which enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speeds — operating by the end of this year. “We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges,” he said. ”We won’t accept suspension.”
Why not just set up a big football field sized poster saying "Bomb me now (or as soon as you finish up in Lebanon)" ?
From the above:
In a blunt response to international concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator on atomic issues, said that Tehran was ready for a showdown with world powers when the matter was taken up by the UN Security Council this month.
“We will expand nuclear technology at whatever stage it may be necessary and all of Iran’s nuclear technology including the [centrifuge] cascades will be expanded,” he said in Tehran.
The announcement was regarded not simply as another rhetorical outburst from Tehran but rather the precursor of a formal reply to the West which will be delivered in full on August 22....
Mr Larijani said yesterday that Iran had a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to build a civilian nuclear programme. He said Iran was planning to expand its operations at the heavily-guarded Natanz facility in central Iran, where the authorities hope to have 3,000 centrifuges — which enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speeds — operating by the end of this year. “We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges,” he said. ”We won’t accept suspension.”
Why not just set up a big football field sized poster saying "Bomb me now (or as soon as you finish up in Lebanon)" ?
Europe still thinking about making travel expensive
MPs call for VAT on flights as greenhouse gas emissions soar - Britain - Times Online
By the way, what is the "Green" way to travel within Europe? Is it by train, ship or what? Is it time to bring back airships? (Hey, I just think they look cool.)
By the way, what is the "Green" way to travel within Europe? Is it by train, ship or what? Is it time to bring back airships? (Hey, I just think they look cool.)
Saturday, August 05, 2006
"But I'm not dead yet!"
New Scientist News - Not brain-dead, but ripe for transplant
Interesting article on doctors reconsidering when to treat patients as dead.
Interesting article on doctors reconsidering when to treat patients as dead.
Against wind power
Matthew Stevens: The answer isn't blowing in the wind | News | The Australian
This is an interesting article explaining why wind power is not the great benefit that it would seem. For example:
...even in those states with the most ambitious renewables targets, South Australia and Victoria, the net effect of wind power on carbon dioxide emissions will be negligible, if not illusory. According to another recent study, if Victoria reaches its target of 1000 megawatts of renewable generation capacity by 2016 (the state currently boasts about 120MW of wind capacity), its share of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall from 32 per cent to 28 per cent by 2020.
But in raw numbers, Victoria's power plants will be pumping out 24 per cent more carbon dioxide by 2020 than they do in 2006 because, quite simply, Victorians will be using much more power.
I suppose it can still be argued that it is better to have some of that electricity produced by clean wind power than an alternative CO2 producing means, otherwise the total future CO2 output will be even higher than that already bad forecast.
But it would seem that the more important message is that, in reality, windpower is just fiddling around the edges of the problem. What's worse, such fiddling can give an impression of significance that is undeserved.
This is an interesting article explaining why wind power is not the great benefit that it would seem. For example:
...even in those states with the most ambitious renewables targets, South Australia and Victoria, the net effect of wind power on carbon dioxide emissions will be negligible, if not illusory. According to another recent study, if Victoria reaches its target of 1000 megawatts of renewable generation capacity by 2016 (the state currently boasts about 120MW of wind capacity), its share of national greenhouse gas emissions will fall from 32 per cent to 28 per cent by 2020.
But in raw numbers, Victoria's power plants will be pumping out 24 per cent more carbon dioxide by 2020 than they do in 2006 because, quite simply, Victorians will be using much more power.
I suppose it can still be argued that it is better to have some of that electricity produced by clean wind power than an alternative CO2 producing means, otherwise the total future CO2 output will be even higher than that already bad forecast.
But it would seem that the more important message is that, in reality, windpower is just fiddling around the edges of the problem. What's worse, such fiddling can give an impression of significance that is undeserved.
Friday, August 04, 2006
A long review article on mini black holes
What fun! Today I get to post about my two favourite subjects one after the other.
This link will lead you to a fairly lengthy review of issues around the possible production of black holes at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It's by physicist Greg Landsberg, to whom I give some credit for actually answering some emails sent to him by James Blodgett, the author of the Risk Evaluation Forum site (see link in my blogroll.) Blodgett's site got me interested in this whole topic.
Landsberg does not think there is anything to Blodgett's concerns, but at least he was respectful in his answers.
Anyway, Landsberg's article above is interesting in several respects:
1. He confirms clearly that Hawking Radiation is never going to be observed directly at astronomical distances (it is far too weak - see pages 8 to 9.)
2. The entire article makes it clear how many different ideas there are about what exactly would happen in the decay process of a micro black hole.
3. Landsberg notes this:
Given the current lower constraints on the fundamental Planck scale in the model with large extra dimensions of ≈ 1 TeV [8], the black holes that we may be able to study at colliders and in cosmic rays will be barely transplanckian. Hence, the unknown quantum corrections to their classical properties are expected to be large, and therefore it is reasonable to focus only on the most robust properties of these mini black holes that are expected to be affected the least by unknown quantum gravity corrections.
Later, he writes:
In quantum gravity, it is expected that there is a fourth, Planckian stage of black hole evaporation, which is reached when the mass of the evaporating black hole approaches the Planck scale. The details of the Planckian stage are completely unknown, as they are governed by the effects of quantum gravity, which should be dominant at such low black hole masses. Some authors speculate that the Planckian stage terminates with a formation of a stable or semi-stable black hole remnant with the mass ∼ MPl. Others argue that the evaporation proceeds until the entire mass of the black hole is radiated. The truth is that no predictions about the Planckian regime are possible, given our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity.
This has been said before: I just thought that it is nice to see such a blunt and direct statement of ignorance.
4. Despite this, Landsberg expresses no doubts at all about Hawking Radiation applying to micro black holes. (It is expected to occur before the black hole reaches Planckian scale and its behaviour becomes guesswork.)
5. Landsberg notes that it has been suggested that instead of (or as well as?) mini black holes, the LHC could create other things such as string balls (don't ask me) or this:
Another possibility is a production of higher-dimensional objects, e.g. black p-branes, rather than spherically symmetric black holes (p = 0) [48].
First time I have heard of that. Did the safety review of the LHC take these into account?
6. The article appears optimistic on the possibility of the by products of naturally occurring mini black holes being detected in neutrino telescopes being built. If this is confirmed, then any of my concerns about Hawking Radiation not occurring would be gone.
7. Landsberg raises one point in such a way that I cannot understand whether it is a potential danger to the LHC or not. This is heavy going, and I refer the interested reader to section 10 of the paper on page on page 27. It seems to me that he may be saying that, on some models, it may be possible for a mini black to evaporate quickly with the equivalent energy of a few hundred pound bomb. This sounds dangerous to me, but as I say, I could be misunderstanding him here. (I would be happy to hear what other reader's think he means.)
This link will lead you to a fairly lengthy review of issues around the possible production of black holes at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It's by physicist Greg Landsberg, to whom I give some credit for actually answering some emails sent to him by James Blodgett, the author of the Risk Evaluation Forum site (see link in my blogroll.) Blodgett's site got me interested in this whole topic.
Landsberg does not think there is anything to Blodgett's concerns, but at least he was respectful in his answers.
Anyway, Landsberg's article above is interesting in several respects:
1. He confirms clearly that Hawking Radiation is never going to be observed directly at astronomical distances (it is far too weak - see pages 8 to 9.)
2. The entire article makes it clear how many different ideas there are about what exactly would happen in the decay process of a micro black hole.
3. Landsberg notes this:
Given the current lower constraints on the fundamental Planck scale in the model with large extra dimensions of ≈ 1 TeV [8], the black holes that we may be able to study at colliders and in cosmic rays will be barely transplanckian. Hence, the unknown quantum corrections to their classical properties are expected to be large, and therefore it is reasonable to focus only on the most robust properties of these mini black holes that are expected to be affected the least by unknown quantum gravity corrections.
Later, he writes:
In quantum gravity, it is expected that there is a fourth, Planckian stage of black hole evaporation, which is reached when the mass of the evaporating black hole approaches the Planck scale. The details of the Planckian stage are completely unknown, as they are governed by the effects of quantum gravity, which should be dominant at such low black hole masses. Some authors speculate that the Planckian stage terminates with a formation of a stable or semi-stable black hole remnant with the mass ∼ MPl. Others argue that the evaporation proceeds until the entire mass of the black hole is radiated. The truth is that no predictions about the Planckian regime are possible, given our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity.
This has been said before: I just thought that it is nice to see such a blunt and direct statement of ignorance.
4. Despite this, Landsberg expresses no doubts at all about Hawking Radiation applying to micro black holes. (It is expected to occur before the black hole reaches Planckian scale and its behaviour becomes guesswork.)
5. Landsberg notes that it has been suggested that instead of (or as well as?) mini black holes, the LHC could create other things such as string balls (don't ask me) or this:
Another possibility is a production of higher-dimensional objects, e.g. black p-branes, rather than spherically symmetric black holes (p = 0) [48].
First time I have heard of that. Did the safety review of the LHC take these into account?
6. The article appears optimistic on the possibility of the by products of naturally occurring mini black holes being detected in neutrino telescopes being built. If this is confirmed, then any of my concerns about Hawking Radiation not occurring would be gone.
7. Landsberg raises one point in such a way that I cannot understand whether it is a potential danger to the LHC or not. This is heavy going, and I refer the interested reader to section 10 of the paper on page on page 27. It seems to me that he may be saying that, on some models, it may be possible for a mini black to evaporate quickly with the equivalent energy of a few hundred pound bomb. This sounds dangerous to me, but as I say, I could be misunderstanding him here. (I would be happy to hear what other reader's think he means.)
How cats control the world
LiveScience.com - Study: Cat Parasite Affects Human Culture
Regular readers know that this is a favourite topic here - the dreaded Toxoplasma gondii that may drive people mad.
This report suggests that it might also just make many of the infected (about half of the world's population!) neurotic, and this in turn might affect entire cultures:
...Lafferty wondered whether high rates of T. gondii infection in a culture could shift the average personality of its individuals.
"In populations where this parasite is very common, mass personality modification could result in cultural change," Lafferty said.
The distribution of T. gondii could explain differences in cultural aspects that relate to ego, money, material possessions, work and rules, Lafferty added. In some countries, infections by the cat parasite are very rare, while in others nearly all adults are infected.
To test his hypothesis, Lafferty looked at published data on cultural dimensions and average personalities for different countries. The countries examined also kept records of the prevalence of T. gondii antibodies in women of childbearing age. Countries with high prevalence of T. gondii infection also had higher average neuroticism scores.
"There could be a lot more to this story," Lafferty said. "Different responses to the parasite by men and women could lead to many additional cultural effects that are, as yet, difficult to analyze."
What I want to know is the rate of this infection in Muslim countries. Maybe the whole Middle East crisis is due to cats. (Just a theory.)
Regular readers know that this is a favourite topic here - the dreaded Toxoplasma gondii that may drive people mad.
This report suggests that it might also just make many of the infected (about half of the world's population!) neurotic, and this in turn might affect entire cultures:
...Lafferty wondered whether high rates of T. gondii infection in a culture could shift the average personality of its individuals.
"In populations where this parasite is very common, mass personality modification could result in cultural change," Lafferty said.
The distribution of T. gondii could explain differences in cultural aspects that relate to ego, money, material possessions, work and rules, Lafferty added. In some countries, infections by the cat parasite are very rare, while in others nearly all adults are infected.
To test his hypothesis, Lafferty looked at published data on cultural dimensions and average personalities for different countries. The countries examined also kept records of the prevalence of T. gondii antibodies in women of childbearing age. Countries with high prevalence of T. gondii infection also had higher average neuroticism scores.
"There could be a lot more to this story," Lafferty said. "Different responses to the parasite by men and women could lead to many additional cultural effects that are, as yet, difficult to analyze."
What I want to know is the rate of this infection in Muslim countries. Maybe the whole Middle East crisis is due to cats. (Just a theory.)
Things I don't understand about Iraq
Top generals see threat of Iraq civil war - Reuters.com
Of course, Iraq's slow burn civil war-ish thing is getting worse, but the political situation on the ground seems not to be attracting much in the way of commentary or analysis since Hezbollah decided to light up a front on Israel.
Here are some things I admit to not understanding about the situation in Iraq:
1. What are the ultimate goals of the warring Sunni/Shia factions? Does either of them think they can drive the other out of political power entirely, or (who knows?) out of the country entirely? Given that each group is sizeable, the entire removal of the other isn't an option seriously believed, is it?
2. I heard once on Phillip Adams radio show that there is a high degree of intermarriage between Sunni and Shite in Iraq, and this was believed by some commentators to be a major reason why there would not be a "full blown" civil war. Sounds like a good theory, but why is it not working to curb the terrible fighting even at these current levels (about 100 people a day)?
3. Last night, I saw a report on a bombing of a group of school boys (I forget which faction they were in, but they were just in a park at the time.) What sort of point does any faction think it is achieving by killing unarmed civilians, especially children? And if the intermarriage point mentioned above is true, surely attacks like that only hurt both Sunni and Shite when the families are mixed.
4. Seemingly, it remains impossible to disarm militias in Baghdad. Why exactly is that the case?
I am sure there are more points I could ask, but I need to do other things right now.
Of course, Iraq's slow burn civil war-ish thing is getting worse, but the political situation on the ground seems not to be attracting much in the way of commentary or analysis since Hezbollah decided to light up a front on Israel.
Here are some things I admit to not understanding about the situation in Iraq:
1. What are the ultimate goals of the warring Sunni/Shia factions? Does either of them think they can drive the other out of political power entirely, or (who knows?) out of the country entirely? Given that each group is sizeable, the entire removal of the other isn't an option seriously believed, is it?
2. I heard once on Phillip Adams radio show that there is a high degree of intermarriage between Sunni and Shite in Iraq, and this was believed by some commentators to be a major reason why there would not be a "full blown" civil war. Sounds like a good theory, but why is it not working to curb the terrible fighting even at these current levels (about 100 people a day)?
3. Last night, I saw a report on a bombing of a group of school boys (I forget which faction they were in, but they were just in a park at the time.) What sort of point does any faction think it is achieving by killing unarmed civilians, especially children? And if the intermarriage point mentioned above is true, surely attacks like that only hurt both Sunni and Shite when the families are mixed.
4. Seemingly, it remains impossible to disarm militias in Baghdad. Why exactly is that the case?
I am sure there are more points I could ask, but I need to do other things right now.
Michael Costello: Israel is not the bully here | Opinion | The Australian
Michael Costello: Israel is not the bully here | Opinion | The Australian
Conservative Laborite Costello defends Israel, and good on him.
Actually, if Labor has any internal tension over support for Israel at the moment (which I am sure they would), it is being kept well under wraps.
Conservative Laborite Costello defends Israel, and good on him.
Actually, if Labor has any internal tension over support for Israel at the moment (which I am sure they would), it is being kept well under wraps.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
How quickly could Iran go nuclear?
The New Yorker: Online Only: Content
The New Yorker, not known for being a right wing panic merchant, runs an interview this week with (journalist?) Steve Coll that is worth reading.
Mr Coll notes that on the question of how quickly Iran could have a nuke:
John Negroponte, the director of National Intelligence, has said, in his most recent public assessment, that the American intelligence community believes that Iran may acquire a nuclear capacity some time in the next decade, meaning from 2010 or 2011 onward. From my reporting, I gather that in private briefings the Bush Administration’s intelligence analysts focus on a five-to-seven-year window, although they emphasize that there’s a fair amount of uncertainty about this estimate. I think the one assertion that the intelligence community seems comfortable with is that it’s not this year or next year and probably not the year after that. However, the more that is discovered about Iran’s research, the more some analysts wonder whether Iran might be able to move faster than the official forecast indicates.
It gets worse, though:
[Interviewer] Once the centrifuges are working, how long will it take to make enough material for a bomb?
It depends on how many centrifuges you put into your plant. The math is fairly straightforward: a cascade of a hundred and sixty-four centrifuges can produce so many grams of highly enriched uranium in so much time if the centrifuges are operating around the clock. Iran has said that it intends to install three thousand of these centrifuges by the end of this year. That seems like an ambitious goal, but let’s assume the Iranians could achieve it. If they did, they could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of bombs within a year if they operated those centrifuges around the clock. Most people don’t think they can pull that off, but that’s the scale of their operation at this point.
The New Yorker, not known for being a right wing panic merchant, runs an interview this week with (journalist?) Steve Coll that is worth reading.
Mr Coll notes that on the question of how quickly Iran could have a nuke:
John Negroponte, the director of National Intelligence, has said, in his most recent public assessment, that the American intelligence community believes that Iran may acquire a nuclear capacity some time in the next decade, meaning from 2010 or 2011 onward. From my reporting, I gather that in private briefings the Bush Administration’s intelligence analysts focus on a five-to-seven-year window, although they emphasize that there’s a fair amount of uncertainty about this estimate. I think the one assertion that the intelligence community seems comfortable with is that it’s not this year or next year and probably not the year after that. However, the more that is discovered about Iran’s research, the more some analysts wonder whether Iran might be able to move faster than the official forecast indicates.
It gets worse, though:
[Interviewer] Once the centrifuges are working, how long will it take to make enough material for a bomb?
It depends on how many centrifuges you put into your plant. The math is fairly straightforward: a cascade of a hundred and sixty-four centrifuges can produce so many grams of highly enriched uranium in so much time if the centrifuges are operating around the clock. Iran has said that it intends to install three thousand of these centrifuges by the end of this year. That seems like an ambitious goal, but let’s assume the Iranians could achieve it. If they did, they could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of bombs within a year if they operated those centrifuges around the clock. Most people don’t think they can pull that off, but that’s the scale of their operation at this point.
More bad news from Asia
Southern Thailand beset by bombings, arson | csmonitor.com
Some other bloggers have noted that while terrorism in Southern Thailand is reported, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of commentary or analysis.
This article indicates that there is considerable disagreement about whether the Islamic separatist movement is behind all the trouble, or only part of it.
Anyway, things are not looking good:
Three Thai policemen and a soldier were killed in two separate incidents Wednesday, only hours after a series of over 100 attacks in southern Thailand, which has been riven by an Islamic separatist insurgency.
Some other bloggers have noted that while terrorism in Southern Thailand is reported, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of commentary or analysis.
This article indicates that there is considerable disagreement about whether the Islamic separatist movement is behind all the trouble, or only part of it.
Anyway, things are not looking good:
Three Thai policemen and a soldier were killed in two separate incidents Wednesday, only hours after a series of over 100 attacks in southern Thailand, which has been riven by an Islamic separatist insurgency.
Women and men hit hard in Aceh
The Jakarta Post - Women, the poor singled out by Aceh sharia enforcers: ICG
This is a short article on the tough application of sharia law in Aceh.
This is a short article on the tough application of sharia law in Aceh.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Back to Hollywood for a minute
TIME.com: Where Have All the Cary Grants Gone? -- Aug. 7, 2006 -- Page 1
I think this essay is correct in identifying a trend in Hollywood over the last few years. (A trend which helps explain decreasing interest in Hollywood product in the over 25 market?)
I think this essay is correct in identifying a trend in Hollywood over the last few years. (A trend which helps explain decreasing interest in Hollywood product in the over 25 market?)
More than an apology needed
ABC sorry for bias on children's show | Media | The Australian
The bias and plain errors in the original ABC story were so obvious it really makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial oversight of the program. The important point should be that they take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The bias and plain errors in the original ABC story were so obvious it really makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial oversight of the program. The important point should be that they take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Why is John Howard popular with younger voters?
There have been quite a few images in the Australian media recently of John Howard being accosted by enthusiatic young supporters. Matt Price has noted the PM's recent popularity too.
Does polling confirm this general impression of popularity with youth? A recent Newspoll showing demographic breakdown over the last couple of years pretty much does. To get to it, go here and look for the link to 23/06/06 "Geographic and Demographic Analysis..."
The interesting thing is that while Howard is clearly most popular with the over 50 demographic, his satisfaction rating is sometimes higher with the 18-34 year olds than the 35 - 49 year set. Dissatisfaction with Howard is sometimes higher in the "middle age" bracket too. There's often not a great deal in it, though.
The Newspoll survey shows that voting intention in the 18-34 yr olds is usually pretty evenly split between Lib/Nationals and Labor, with usually only one or two percent higher on the Labor side. (Of course, perhaps the younger crowd tend to favour the Greens too, so preferences from them may help Labor.)
So it would seem that it is certainly not the case that you can argue that on voting intentions, the younger ages are strongly conservative. (Perhaps they are more conservative now than in previous decades; I don't know.) Yet their satisfaction with Howard is quite high. (And unfortunately for Kim Beazley, they are often more dissatisfied with him than satisfied.)
Sometimes a degree of "dagginess" mysteriously reaches a certain level of "cool" amongst the young. (Rolf Harris seems a good example of this in the entertainment field.) I think that is part of Howard's current appeal to the young, mixed with admiration for his clear enthusiasm for the job, and the high degree of resilience he displays (this being a character trait that receives a lot of attention in child development circles now).
I have also always felt that he is a genuinely modest man, who (I like to imagine) has to pinch himself often to be sure he isn't dreaming while being received on the international stage. (He is still capable of appearing not entirely at ease, but I find that oddly endearing.) I presume that others share this view, even if they don't agree with all of his policies.
UPDATE: Janet Albrechtsen gives her view of Howard's popularity today, and it's hard to disagree with her.
Does polling confirm this general impression of popularity with youth? A recent Newspoll showing demographic breakdown over the last couple of years pretty much does. To get to it, go here and look for the link to 23/06/06 "Geographic and Demographic Analysis..."
The interesting thing is that while Howard is clearly most popular with the over 50 demographic, his satisfaction rating is sometimes higher with the 18-34 year olds than the 35 - 49 year set. Dissatisfaction with Howard is sometimes higher in the "middle age" bracket too. There's often not a great deal in it, though.
The Newspoll survey shows that voting intention in the 18-34 yr olds is usually pretty evenly split between Lib/Nationals and Labor, with usually only one or two percent higher on the Labor side. (Of course, perhaps the younger crowd tend to favour the Greens too, so preferences from them may help Labor.)
So it would seem that it is certainly not the case that you can argue that on voting intentions, the younger ages are strongly conservative. (Perhaps they are more conservative now than in previous decades; I don't know.) Yet their satisfaction with Howard is quite high. (And unfortunately for Kim Beazley, they are often more dissatisfied with him than satisfied.)
Sometimes a degree of "dagginess" mysteriously reaches a certain level of "cool" amongst the young. (Rolf Harris seems a good example of this in the entertainment field.) I think that is part of Howard's current appeal to the young, mixed with admiration for his clear enthusiasm for the job, and the high degree of resilience he displays (this being a character trait that receives a lot of attention in child development circles now).
I have also always felt that he is a genuinely modest man, who (I like to imagine) has to pinch himself often to be sure he isn't dreaming while being received on the international stage. (He is still capable of appearing not entirely at ease, but I find that oddly endearing.) I presume that others share this view, even if they don't agree with all of his policies.
UPDATE: Janet Albrechtsen gives her view of Howard's popularity today, and it's hard to disagree with her.
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground
Looking for lunar caves as a possible place to set up a permanent colony on the Moon got brief mention here recently. One or two space scientists agree:
The Moon appears to possess long, cave-like structures called lava tubes that are similar to ones on Earth. They form when the surface of a stream of lava solidifies and the molten rock inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.
For decades, engineers and space scientists have discussed the possibility of using these caves as astronaut housing because they are sheltered from space radiation and micrometeorite impacts. But the idea should now be revisited in light of NASA's push to send astronauts back to the Moon, says Austin Mardon of the Antarctic Institute of Canada in Edmonton, Alberta.
At a meeting of the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) in Beijing, China, last week, he argued that robotic probes should be sent to potential lava tubes to see if they are suitable for habitation.
He says erecting pressurised tents inside a cave would be easier and faster than trying to construct a rigid structure on the surface. "Instead of assembling structures that have to be meteorite-proof on the surface, or burying them, you'd have tent-like structures inside these tubes," Mardon told New Scientist. "It's like being cavemen on the Moon."
"It’s a potentially very inviting place to put infrastructure,” agrees Mark Robinson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, US. He says sections of the lava tubes with roofs still intact appear to be very stable, having survived for 3 billion years or more since their formation.
But he points out that the lava tubes may not be located where NASA would like to send astronauts. For example, the polar regions – which may harbour water ice that could be used to support a lunar base – appear to bear no sign of the ancient lava flows associated with lava tubes.
That's a pity.
As to how NASA intends looking for water on the Moon, it's hoping to try smashing something into it, and sniffing the plume for water. A previous attempt at something similar was not successful, and in fact I would guess that the new attempt may simply be unlucky too, even if some water is around.
Wouldn't a few astronauts with a couple of drills and some explosives stand a much better chance?
The Moon appears to possess long, cave-like structures called lava tubes that are similar to ones on Earth. They form when the surface of a stream of lava solidifies and the molten rock inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.
For decades, engineers and space scientists have discussed the possibility of using these caves as astronaut housing because they are sheltered from space radiation and micrometeorite impacts. But the idea should now be revisited in light of NASA's push to send astronauts back to the Moon, says Austin Mardon of the Antarctic Institute of Canada in Edmonton, Alberta.
At a meeting of the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) in Beijing, China, last week, he argued that robotic probes should be sent to potential lava tubes to see if they are suitable for habitation.
He says erecting pressurised tents inside a cave would be easier and faster than trying to construct a rigid structure on the surface. "Instead of assembling structures that have to be meteorite-proof on the surface, or burying them, you'd have tent-like structures inside these tubes," Mardon told New Scientist. "It's like being cavemen on the Moon."
"It’s a potentially very inviting place to put infrastructure,” agrees Mark Robinson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, US. He says sections of the lava tubes with roofs still intact appear to be very stable, having survived for 3 billion years or more since their formation.
But he points out that the lava tubes may not be located where NASA would like to send astronauts. For example, the polar regions – which may harbour water ice that could be used to support a lunar base – appear to bear no sign of the ancient lava flows associated with lava tubes.
That's a pity.
As to how NASA intends looking for water on the Moon, it's hoping to try smashing something into it, and sniffing the plume for water. A previous attempt at something similar was not successful, and in fact I would guess that the new attempt may simply be unlucky too, even if some water is around.
Wouldn't a few astronauts with a couple of drills and some explosives stand a much better chance?
About Mel
Unfortunately (as I don't want reader's thinking I just made this up), I have never mentioned before on this blog something that I have said to family: I have never liked Mel Gibson or his movies. It's not an opinion that can easily be rationalised; being one of the few "conservatives" in Hollywood, you would think I would have found something to like about him. (I also have not seen The Passion of the Christ, which I might like, but I have my doubts.)
Now that I feel justified in my dislike of him, I should mention a few other actors I just don't like in case they get into trouble too: Clint Eastwood (the critical acclaim given to "Unforgiven" was incomprehensible); Jim Carrey (I never get any sense from any interview I have seen that there is a "real" person inside that body at all; he's just creepy); and ...I am sure there is another one lurking in the back of my mind, but he or she won't come out right now.
Now that I feel justified in my dislike of him, I should mention a few other actors I just don't like in case they get into trouble too: Clint Eastwood (the critical acclaim given to "Unforgiven" was incomprehensible); Jim Carrey (I never get any sense from any interview I have seen that there is a "real" person inside that body at all; he's just creepy); and ...I am sure there is another one lurking in the back of my mind, but he or she won't come out right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)