Friday, December 31, 2004
Make sure you look through the rest of the site, it's fascinating and also features a database of historical tsunami events.
Peter Rabbit becomes a square, a semi-circle, an ellipse and a rabbit image.The text pictured reads "Once upon a time, there were four little rabbits and their names were Flopsy, Mopsy, Cotton-tail and Peter..." The article mentions some difficulty in trying for a literal translation from English to Middle Kingdom:
The "time seemed appropriate" for the hieroglyph version, due in April, translators said, as the story had already been published in 35 languages.
Potter's landscape and wildlife would also have been unfamiliar to ancient Egyptians - who had no words for things like blackberry, gooseberry, blackcurrant and potato.Don't know how to read hieroglyphs? Omniglot is a good place to start for info.
"Beatrix Potter's words sometimes do not readily fall into ancient Egyptian," [translators Richard Parkinson and John Nunn] wrote in the foreword.
"The surviving texts provide no easy model for such colloquial phrases as 'Now run along, and don't get into mischief.'"
Thursday, December 30, 2004
So I tried sending an email and got good news in return: everyone at the Centre is just fine (and damage was obviously not so bad as to lose Internet connectivity). David writes:
One of our boats moored in Victoria decided to park itself in the Marine Charter car park and totalled both engines and the blue bus has now decided it has caught a cold after being up to its windows in sea-water... but compared to the other areas we are still in good shape!According to David, the Seychelles faired pretty well -- some people were drowned, but overall the damage was not as extensive as it has been in other areas. So this is really great news. If you're ever going to go to the Seychelles, make sure you stop by the Underwater Centre on Mahe and say hi to them. David, by the way, is one of the directors of the Marine Conservation Society Seychelles, and one of the really interesting thing that group does is track whale sharks around the islands. They conduct daily ultralight flights to count whale sharks and also have a program wherein they attach transmitters to the sharks in order to track their migratory routes.
One of my pet peeves about this sort of reporting is that usually, it's the cash donations that are mentioned. Then people get all up in arms because country A (okay, I'll be less circumspect: I mean, the US) doesn't pledge as much as other countries, or as much as other countries feel it should pledge. What usually isn't mentioned is the logistical cost of providing support from, say, the military. When something like this happens, the US always -- always -- has US Navy ships on hand, and the Air Force usually jumps in with both feet to help too. Navy Seabees go out to rebuild bridges, and it's not uncommon for the other branches to send servicemen and -women to help recover and rebuild. I mentioned in an earlier post that the Navy sent the USS Bonhomme Richard, a large-deck amphib ship, and the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier, to render assistance. So how much does this cost?
I went over to the General Accounting Office, and I'm still looking, but I did find this cost analysis information in a paper comparing and contrasting nuclear carriers vice conventional carriers:
Table 3.1: Life-Cycle Costs for Conventional and Nuclear Aircraft Carriers (based on a 50-year service life)Okay. The Abraham Lincoln is a nuclear aircraft carrier. According to The Inflation Calculator, $298 million dollars in 1997 dollars is $334,263,334.38 in 2003 dollars (the latest year available). Divide by 365 and you get a cost of $915,789.96 per day. About a million bucks per day. That's just the one carrier. And the price seems a bit low to me, but even if you go with that, and know what else we're doing to help, then you get an idea of how much of the taxpayers' money the government is really spending on top of that $25 million cash.
(GAO Report "NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers", p.76)
Cost catagory CV CVN Fiscal year 1997 dollars in millions Operating and Support Cost Direct operating and support cost $10,436 $11,677 Indirect operating and support cost $688 $3,205 Total operating and support cost $11,125 $14,882 Annual operating and support cost $222 $298
And all of that pales in comparision to what US taxpayers and corporations are giving straight out of their own pockets.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Glynne Bowsher worked on the first car to break the sound barrier -- the ThrustSSC. Now, he and a group of fellow engineers are working on a steam-powered racecar.
That's right: race car. This thing is supposed to be able to go faster than 200 mph.
Instead of using a more conventional piston-operated engine, they'll be using a steam turbine that's driven by steam generated by four boilers which use propane gas to heat up water and make it into steam. Ah, turbines. The McFaul is driven by four Lockheed-Martin LM2500s, which are normally used to power airplanes. So they're putting one into a car? Cool!
Probably not surprising, but the image on the left is my favorite. My parents tell me that the inscription below Anubis says something along the lines of, "Embalmer of the gods, Anubis looks for ways to increase his efficiency and utilize leftovers". When you turn the crank, he draws a sausage.
Some of the Theatre's works are being shown at the American Visionary Art Museum, to which I'll be going whenever I can get a chance to get out of Norfolk and up to Baltimore, because the website is pretty neat.
I'm particular intrigued & amused by the Museum's upcoming Kinetic Sculpture Race:
From the American Visionary Art Museum - A race of wacky, imaginative, TOTALLY HUMAN POWERED WORKS OF ART DESIGNED TO TRAVEL ON LAND, THROUGH MUD, AND OVER DEEP HARBOR WATERS constructed out of used bicycles, gears, and parts, created by a lunatic genius who tinkers around in the garage or backyard (Do you know this person?) The machines can be simple, small crafts, piloted by only one brave soul, or they can be over 50 feet long, extremely well-engineered, sophisticated vehicles powered by a team of pilots.Now that is cool -- half art, half Junkyard Wars!
The British don't know how to make a good cup of coffee. You don't know how to make a good cup of tea. It's an even swap.I've never had British coffee before, so I don't know whether this is actually true. Hopefully I find out soon (and I like tea, so my bases are covered). My favorite quote from the book, though, is:
BRITISH WOMEN AT WAR. A British woman officer or non-commissioned officer can--and often does--give orders to a man private. The men obey smartly and know it is no shame. For British women have proven themselves in this way. They have stuck to their posts near burning ammunition dumps, delivered messages afoot after their motorcycles have been blasted from under them. They have pulled aviators from burning planes. They have died at the gun posts and as they fell another girl has stepped directly into the position and "carried on." There is not a single record in this war of any British woman in uniformed service quitting her post or failing in her duty under fire.YEAH!
Now you understand why British soldiers respect the women in uniform. They have won the right to the utmost respect. When you see a girl in khaki or air-force blue with a bit of ribbon on her tunic, remember she didn't get it for knitting more socks than anyone else in Ipswich.
The USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier, is over there. From a press release on her site:
The Lincoln CSG ["Carrier Strike Group"] brings personnel and equipment to lend help and support in needed areas such as search and rescue operations, delivery of food, water and medicine to stabilize life-threatening situations, provide limited transportation of displaced persons to designated areas from areas inaccessible to host nation transportation assets, and engineer support for sanitation and mobility to affected areas.The USS Bonhomme Richard is also over there now -- I checked out her web site and it doesn't mention anything about disaster relief yet, but it'd be a good bet to keep one's eye on that site for more first-person Navy relief news.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Friday, December 24, 2004
Still working on the deployment posts. But in talking to James while home on Christmas leave, I had some thoughts about self-defense, deadly force, etc.
Often, when I encounter people who have strong beliefs for strict gun control, it seems to me -- and I admit that I am reading between the lines here -- that what they're saying is something along the lines of this: "guns kill, therefore if there are no guns, there will be no killing". I'm sure this isn't what they really mean, but I get this...how do I put this? I get this sense that many people's idea of violence is something they've learned from the movies. In the movies, generally (and this is a broad generalization, I know), if a bad guy is shot with a gun, he or she is dead instantly. So I get this impression that people think of guns as a way to automatically render people dead instantly. Therefore, people (like me) who are interested in carrying firearms for self-defense must want to instantly kill people who are trying to instantly kill me. It has to be one extreme or the other. Well, no wonder we CCW people are crazy, right? Someone might want to rob me, or even hurt me, but it's highly unlikely that I'd run into someone who actually wants to kill me, right? So what am I doing with a gun?
I'm in the Navy. We go through a lot of training in regards to firearms in defensive situations. Our definition of "deadly force" goes something like this (I don't have it memorized yet -- I am a dirtbag):
- Deadly force is force that a person knows, or should know, carries the risk of causing death or serious bodily harm [ emphasis mine ]. Deadly force is used only as a last resort when all lesser means have been or cannot reasonably be employed.
Furthermore, we are taught that when we employ deadly force, we do so only so much as we need to in order to remove the situation that caused us to employ it in the first place. For example: guy runs at us with a knife, we shoot him. He drops the knife and sits down; we stop shooting.
So, to put this in a CCW perspective: in employing deadly force to protect myself from deadly force, I am not trying to kill people who are trying to kill me. In fact, that is expressly not what I am trying to do. I simply seek to stop the threat. This is responsible defensive use of firearms. This is taught not only in the military, but in civilian CCW and self-defense courses such as those that James teaches. Just because I have a gun, I am not out to kill people: I just want to stop the threat. And the threat includes not just someone actively trying to kill me, but someone trying to cause me (or those around me) serious bodily harm, too.
If you expand your concept of guns from "guns are only used to instantly kill persons who are trying to instantly kill you" to "guns are used to stop the threat of death or serious bodily harm", then I think it becomes easier to understand what might seem to be ludicrious claims about the number of uses of guns in self-defense per year as possible, and even plausible. And it might be easier to understand why people want to have firearms for self- and home-defense.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Sunday, October 03, 2004
If you're interested, look here: VolcanoCam. Maybe we'll see the eruption today on the Web!
Yes, yes, I know I have to post some messages about the deployment (and I will), but this was too interesting. I'm still working on the story of our overseas adventure...