Hi there, !
Today Thu 07/27/2006 Wed 07/26/2006 Tue 07/25/2006 Mon 07/24/2006 Sun 07/23/2006 Sat 07/22/2006 Fri 07/21/2006 Archives
446779 articles and 1578620 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 89 articles and 626 comments as of 9:58.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Opinion    Local News        Posting Order
Hamas, I-J rocket Sderot. Surprise.
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 3: Non-WoT
3 00:00 PlanetDan [2485] 
14 00:00 RWV [384] 
4 00:00 gorb [389] 
2 00:00 Raj [291] 
36 00:00 DMFD [454] 
20 00:00 J. D. Lux [322] 
11 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [249] 
1 00:00 gorb [265] 
2 00:00 RWV [388] 
4 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [253] 
19 00:00 Tony (UK) [293] 
0 [261] 
25 00:00 Fordesque [318] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
4 00:00 Inspector Clueso [375]
8 00:00 Thravirong Sloluling4860 [397]
12 00:00 Inspector Clueso [394]
20 00:00 RWV [406]
1 00:00 Lone Ranger [285]
0 [275]
0 [277]
13 00:00 gorb [270]
3 00:00 Lancasters Over Dresden [277]
9 00:00 JosephMendiola [377]
6 00:00 6 [264]
25 00:00 kelly [338]
0 [265]
1 00:00 Poison Reverse [267]
15 00:00 JohnQC [280]
0 [266]
44 00:00 JosephMendiola [447]
15 00:00 Nimble Spemble [311]
3 00:00 Canaveral Dan [274]
3 00:00 6 [263]
7 00:00 texhooey [261]
1 00:00 Slaith Shomong8325 [754]
2 00:00 Champ Angeger5024 [325]
11 00:00 Manolo [249]
4 00:00 mojo [268]
11 00:00 Nimble Spemble [257]
3 00:00 Zenster [271]
0 [277]
0 [259]
0 [257]
1 00:00 anymouse [312]
6 00:00 Ptah [308]
7 00:00 Captain America [316]
3 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [281]
1 00:00 Chuck Simmins [305]
Page 2: WoT Background
4 00:00 JosephMendiola [404]
2 00:00 Shieldwolf [382]
5 00:00 Zenster [285]
2 00:00 JosephMendiola [357]
4 00:00 Seafarious [264]
8 00:00 DMFD [286]
4 00:00 2b [266]
4 00:00 Manolo [255]
12 00:00 Captain America [266]
2 00:00 Nimble Spemble [248]
5 00:00 Vembra [258]
12 00:00 mojo [279]
5 00:00 CrazyFool [265]
5 00:00 gorb [266]
1 00:00 Anginens Threreng8133 [262]
5 00:00 Old Patriot [253]
19 00:00 Flish Uleregum9913 [269]
1 00:00 Perfesser [297]
4 00:00 Tony (UK) [279]
0 [260]
11 00:00 Fordesque [242]
24 00:00 Dreadnought [265]
4 00:00 Omeamble Huporong4781 [415]
Page 4: Opinion
4 00:00 DanNY [305]
7 00:00 Swamp Blondie [456]
10 00:00 Dave D. [264]
2 00:00 phil_b [258]
6 00:00 Rick [260]
7 00:00 Anonymoose [248]
0 [260]
18 00:00 Swamp Blondie [413]
2 00:00 Zenster [271]
5 00:00 Griper Whegum8464 [271]
1 00:00 john [285]
Page 5: Local News
1 00:00 Seafarious [272]
4 00:00 Besoeker [281]
13 00:00 Parabellum [268]
5 00:00 RD [259]
4 00:00 Zenster [254]
19 00:00 xbalanke [279]
0 [255]
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Vision Daring and Profit Illicit Trade Led To Modern Globalization
n a forthcoming study from the American Journal of Sociology, Emily Erikson and Peter Bearman (Columbia University) demonstrate that an early example of globalization was the direct result of individual initiative malfeasance, specifically, private trade using company resources.

The researchers analyze data from 4,572 voyages completed by the East India Trading Company from 1601 to 1833 - offering a rare and biased nuanced look at how densely connected global markets emerged from the ingenuity misconduct of entrepreneurial individuals.

"We show that for a limited period of time there emerged a unique opportunity for self-interested actors to act; that their actions culminated in a network infrastructure that transcended them, and ultimately created the context of their own demise by their betters," write Erikson and Bearman.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: DanNY || 07/24/2006 13:12 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [291 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Typical socialist.
Posted by: DarthVader || 07/24/2006 13:46 Comments || Top||

#2  Required course at Columbia - 'I Hate Capitalism 101'?

Yeah, like these guys never, ever used any University resources for their own personal benefit...
Posted by: Raj || 07/24/2006 14:55 Comments || Top||

Prescott hints at Blair quitting “very shortly”
LONDON - Britain’s deputy prime minister hinted on Sunday that Tony Blair may “very shortly” step down as prime minister and leader of the Labour Party, triggering a party election to replace him.

John Prescott’s comment during an interview with BBC television is likely to add fuel to the burning political question -- ’when will Blair move aside?’. “I can still make an important contribution when the party has its means by which it makes decisions about that (the choosing of a new leader) and I think that will come very shortly,” Prescott said. “I think it will be a smooth transition .... therefore there will be a timetable that will be decided by Tony and the party,” he said.

The deputy premier said he expected to play a role during any transition phase which he added ought to include a contest.

Although Blair has said he will stand down as prime minister and Labour leader before the next election he has refused to name a date at which he intends to relinquish the reins of power. Chancellor Gordon Brown is widely tipped to replace Blair although there have been signs from senior Labour politicians over recent months that he may not have a totally clear run for the position.
Posted by: Steve White || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [293 views] Top|| File under:

#1  And good riddance.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 0:48 Comments || Top||

#2  I'd like to hear what our UK cousins have to say about who will replace him... and what can be expected of him or her.

I suspect that Tony, in the foreign policy area, anyway, is about as good as we poor Americans are likely to see in the PM slot.

But I defer to the experts. :-)
Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 || 07/24/2006 1:11 Comments || Top||

#3  No expert am I, but I'm not a big Gordon Brown fan.
Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 1:22 Comments || Top||

#4  Champ, my hope is that once Gordon Brown replaces Blair, support for Labour will erode even further and give the Conservatives a better chance at the next election. Brown is further to the left than Blair, but I wouldn't expect to see him do a Zapotero and pull the troops out of Iraq straight away. He recently made a show of talking tough about the need to keep our nukes, which suggests he's moving towards the centre as his big moment approaches.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 1:35 Comments || Top||

#5  Hmmm. Thanks for responding so quickly... Ugh! Gordon Brown is not among those I'd want to see, considering some of the total flaming idiot statements I've seen attributed to him.

Perhaps the real question is: What is wrong with the Tories? Why can't they get their act together ala Maggie, and take the initiative? This is what perplexes me most about UK politics. They seem as politically inept as California Repubs, LOL.

Dammit. :-/
Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 || 07/24/2006 1:42 Comments || Top||

#6  I recall that in the aftermath of 9/11 when the US Congress met, Tony Blair was there to stand with America in our darkest hour. The ONLY foreign leader there. Thank you Mr. Blair.
Posted by: DMFD || 07/24/2006 2:28 Comments || Top||

#7  Yes, it's hard to tell the difference between the Tories and Labour these days. They've tried to 'modernise' and ended up looking rather silly, talking a lot of guff about The Environment™. They really get my vote only by default, because they're not Labour, and they're not the Liberal Democrats.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 2:31 Comments || Top||

#8  Ah, you're in the UK, Kali? Tony (UK) needs the company, I believe, LOL, and we appreciate your view. Thank you for the intel. Does Brown "appeal" on domestic issues, i.e. capitalism vs socialism? I focus on the foreign policy stuff about UK politics, of course - and I can't provide links, but he's said some things regards the WoT that made me cringe and place him on my EUro Lefty List.

True, DMFC. Tony stood and made good on it. Thanks are due from the US Point of View. Domestically, I recall a long ago Bulldog, Shep, Howard, (where've they gone?) and our current (yeah!) Tony (UK) thread that drubbed him quite badly on the domestic side.
Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 || 07/24/2006 2:43 Comments || Top||

#9  Briefly, Blair's big project was to get Labour elected. To do that, he had to move to the centre, muzzle some of the more ardent leftists in the party, and drop some of the more malodorous policies, such as wholesale nationalisation. This he managed to do by calling Labour 'New Labour' and embarking on a charm offensive, eg "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - crap like that.

It was also important that New Labour could be trusted in the City of London (8% of our GDP), so Gordon Brown had a policy of 'prudence', where we wouldn't spend more in a business cycle than was coming in. He also promised to be business friendly. That was in 1997. His first act as Chancellor was to make the Bank of England independent from the politicians of the day (ie it's up to them to change interest rates, for the best interests of the economy, not for short term political purposes). That is seen as a good move. At roughly the same time he also reduced tax relief on pensions contribution and fiddled around a bit there. The outcome was that 5 billion a year has been whisked away from people's pensions since 1997. This was the first example (that I know of) of Gordon's 'stealth taxes' - there are now many more. They have put more money into the Health Service and Education, but the results are not there.

Fast forward to 2006. 'New Labour' is called 'Labour' again - they had some conference to say the transformation was complete, or some such twaddle. He's got rid of ancient legal traditions under the guise of expediency and cost. He's devolved power to Scotland and Wales, but the English pay for it all, he's embedded us more and more with Europe when a clear majority don't consider themselves European, our immigration service is a joke with illegals working in the Home Office etc and to cap it all, there's the honours for cash fiasco, where for about a 1 million pound donation to the Labour party, you can be a Lord, ie the cash-for-peerages scandal.

All his most recent 'reforming' legislation has been watered down by his own back-benchers (arch-lefties who would not have been elected under their Old Labour colours) that it's much worse than doing nothing. He's got no credibility with his own party, who are starting to show their true leftist roots again.

His only real success is on the world stage, where he did the right thing in Iraq (and Labour hate him for it), but then he did get us into Kyoto and a host of other crap initiatives...

He promised so much (I voted for him in 1997 - happily!) and New Labour did seem to have changed. How easily we were taken in ;)

I don't think history will be kind to Tony Blair, he had a golden opportunity to change the face of British politics and blew it.

As for Gordon, he's finally shown himself to be a typical Labour tax and spend chancellor and not a reformer.

The Tories could wipe the floor with Labour, but aren't doing it yet - they're trying to present themselves as more centrist than the master centrist, Blair. Until they recognise that not everyone wants a socialist paradise, they're not going to make the gains they should. There are four issues in this country; immigration (top in many polls), crime, terrorism, Europe. The party that offers real solutions for those areas will rule the roost (I have some ideas in that area ;)

I think the great 'New Labour' experiment, where the Labour party could work constructively with wealth-creators and industry and not just see them as capitalistic running dogs, where they would reform institutions that had passed their sell-by-date and where they would be whiter-than-white in their morals (one of the key reasons they got elected in '97 was because of the ongoing sleeze from the Conservative government) has been shown to be a sham, and the country is now poorer, our pensions system is buggered, the NHS sucks in 76 billion a year and still doesn't work, education has been hammered, our defence systems are *deliberately* being made non-compatible with US gear and we have given up even more sovereignty to Europe (don't get me started on the Human Rights Act).

I'll shut up now.
Posted by: Tony (UK) || 07/24/2006 2:45 Comments || Top||

#10  Wowsers, Tony! It'll take me a bit to digest it all, but it appears that he's a disaster across the board. Now that you've mentioned it, the MoD decision to "go Euro" and abandon US compatibility was one of those moments that completely put me off - obviously self-defeating and a major step backward. The Euro mil vision is a full generation behind - we've seen where it leads in the recent Afghanistan stories.

Wow, again. Thanks, Tony! You and Kali smack the Tories for us, okay? I thought the political winds were changing, with new parties of a far more nationalistic nature emerging, and I took that to mean a Tory candidate who isn't on the dole or Kool Aid could surprise the hell out of the current conventional wisdom crowd.
Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 || 07/24/2006 2:58 Comments || Top||

#11  The Tories took a wrong turn by electing Cameron instead of Davies. They wanted their own Blair, young and charismatic, but instead they got someone who could conceivably fail to knock Labour out, by alienating too many traditional Tory voters. But there are still a few people sensible people in the Tory party, like Sir Nicholas Winterton.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 3:23 Comments || Top||

#12  Yes - there's a man with his priorities straight! I do recall the kerfuffle these comments caused - and his stalwart stance behind them. That's a man I could contribute to and vote for.

I mentioned what was reported as the emerging popularity of "nationalistic" (MNP?) parties or party? Is there any real popular gravity there?

Winterton's chances to rise to prominence within the Tories - any hope of that? Is Davies cut from that cloth?

Sorry to be so pesky. :-)

Thank you both!
Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 || 07/24/2006 3:35 Comments || Top||

#13  I suspect that Cameron will be somewhat less pro-US/more anti-Israel than Blair, and Gordon Brown quite a bit so.

Actually, Cameron could be even worse than that, given the recent inanities of his Shadow Foreign Secretary. Choosing Cameron over Davis was a very bad sign for the Tories.
Posted by: JSU || 07/24/2006 4:06 Comments || Top||

#14  Another UKer here.

I will not and cannot vote for Blair v2 AKA Carmerwrong.

I will never consider voting for the stealth communist Brown.

Emigration? Where's nice? Singapore..?.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles || 07/24/2006 6:20 Comments || Top||

#15  Oz. Ask phil_b.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 07/24/2006 7:04 Comments || Top||

#16  Fred's guest house. You know you want to...

Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 7:42 Comments || Top||

#17  Lots of creeping socialism here in Oz at the state level, but the good news is Howard is easily the most popular polly in Oz. If he runs (leads the Liberals) in the next election (next year) he's highly likely to win. Howard is seen as safe hands and a solid bloke. If we beat the poms in the Ashes (Howard is a big cricket fan as are many Australians) and the election is held soon after, he's got a lock.

Besides, the weather is much nicer here.
Posted by: phil_b || 07/24/2006 8:07 Comments || Top||

#18  I'd like to hear what our UK cousins have to say about who will replace him...

They have nothing to say. In UK the Prime Minuister can be replaced by pure internal party play without voters having any say on it. And BTW, unless things have changed since when Churchill was an MP a guy can be stomped in elctions but the Party decide he will go to Parlimant anyway (eg guy has lots of green or knows things about party leader) so a back-bencher will resign his mandate in his favour and the guy will go to Parlimant without any vote.

England has had freedom, habeas corpus and elections since weel before any other major nation but for democracy they have near zero. What they have is partitocracy.
Posted by: JFM || 07/24/2006 10:27 Comments || Top||

#19  Oh so we can expect another term for Howard then phil_b hmm?

Just bowing to the inevitable here, I'm sure there will be a spirited showing, followed by a batting collapse, an 'incident' - of an undefined nature, a falling out with the captain, the captain being replaced, good natured 'banter' from the Ozzy bowlers that leads to GBH - again, target undefined, but by some miracle England will win the ashes, only to find the Ozzies had already sold the film rights to 'The murder down-under' so we graciously relinquish them.

Posted by: Tony (UK) || 07/24/2006 14:06 Comments || Top||

Wacky (CofE) Bishop of London Declares Fatwa Against Flying In Aircraft
Posted late Sunday, moved to Monday. AoS.
Flying abroad for a foreign holiday is "a sin" against the planet, one of the country's leading bishops has declared. Like murder, adultery and stealing, choosing to travel on jet planes has moral consequences, according to the Bishop of London because flights are doing too much damage to the environment.

In a highly controversial statement, Richard Chartres, 59 - who admits to regular visits to Russia - urged Christians to stop taking endless flights and to live a more 'eco-friendly' lifestyle. He said: "There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light.

"Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin.

"Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions."

But the timing of his remarks means that millions of people who need to listen to his message will not be around to hear it. An estimated 2.1 million holidaymakers crowded into Britain's airports at the weekend at the start of the school summer holidays. They will be followed by millions more over the next few weeks as Britons' love of holidays abroad continues to boom.

Figures show we are taking more holidays than ever, with the total up 6.9 million last year to 66.3 million.

No political party would dare to say anything as outspoken as the bishop for fear of losing all support among their holiday-loving voters. Resorts such as Blackpool, Brighton and the Cornish coast are still hugely popular, but millions of people will only settle for a foreign escape.

But a family of four flying to Spain comes at a price for the environment, as well as the cost of the trip. Their return flight from Heathrow to Malaga in Spain will produce about two tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to the Carbon Neutral Company. To soak up its carbon emissions, the family would need to spend an extra £17.30 to plant trees to 'neutralise' their emissions.
Or they could just go to dinner at the local Texas-style steakhouse. Think ribs.
For a return trip to Florida - one of the most popular destinations for British tourists - this rises to 6.4 tonnes.

The bishop's remarks come at a time when the Church of England is desperately trying to convince people to be green. It is about to publish a booklet about the environment called Treasures on Earth and has set up 'The 40 per cent Church of England' campaign. This aims to slash the church's carbon emissions - a major contributor to climate change - to 40 per of current levels by 2050.
Wonder when the good bishop last thought about Jesus and His teachings?
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury who drives the eco-car, Toyota Prius, is also banging the green drum. He has said: "We are not consumers of what God has made. We are in communion with it."

Last month, all parish churches were ordered told to carry out an audit of current energy use in a bid to cut their usage.

The Bishop of London, who is married with four children, heads the church's 'Shrinking the Footprint' campaign. The Church of England was unable to say whether the bishop ever flies abroad or the type of car that he drives.
And they aren't going to find out for you, either.
The bishop, who also attacked people who drive big cars, was dismissed by a motoring group chief. Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "You cannot just point the finger in that way.

"Some people have larger cars for perfectly legitimate reasons so I don't think morality comes into it.

"Yes, climate change is a problem but we need an overall strategy to tackle it.

"This is rather a knee-jerk reaction from the Church. Maybe they should stick to what they know best."
"If God had meant us to fly, he would have given us Flying Nun hats, like that cute little Sally Field."
And it isn't clear what the CoE knows best anymore.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [318 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Prime example of why organized religion fails it as far as I am concerned. Though not as bad a condoning murder, rape amd pillage it's just as stupid.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom || 07/23/2006 21:09 Comments || Top||

#2  "This is rather a knee-jerk reaction from the Church. Maybe they should stick to what they know best."

As a former Episcopalian, I still don't know what they know best, and I'm pretty sure they don't either.
Posted by: xbalanke || 07/23/2006 21:11 Comments || Top||

#3  #2 xbalanke - it appears "what they know best" is making complete public asses of themselves.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 07/23/2006 21:19 Comments || Top||

#4  I saw these morons on tv the other day, giving a service. They were talking about how 'green' Jesus was. It's kinda sad how desperate they are to fill the empty seats.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 0:55 Comments || Top||

#5  Those cassocks look rather snowy white. It must take a great many pounds of greenhouse emmissions to heat the many frivolous gallons of water necessary, plus the ghastly oceans of bleach to properly dazzle your dull-witted constituents. I'd also like to see the union cards for your beleaguered laundresses, undoubtedly labouring away in inhuman conditions for your superfluous and petty vanities.

Have you no shame?
Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 1:10 Comments || Top||

#6  Typical elitist hypocritical crap. Some goof takes his family to Spain, and that's a sin against the planet. But his trips to Russia are ok. No wonder the C of E can't get butts in the pews.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie || 07/24/2006 2:03 Comments || Top||

#7  Has anyone seen anything about temperatures across the US going up an average of 3 degrees on the days that all the planes were grounded after 9/11? Something about the con-trails reflecting enough sunlight energy back into space that it actually made some noticable difference? I don't believe it, but it might be interesting if it were true.
Posted by: gorb || 07/24/2006 2:44 Comments || Top||

#8  These clowns must be suffering from delayed jetlag. When I fly my plane on holiday, I only get proplag, so I must be exempt from the fatwa, heh.

So if you fly a broad on a foreign holiday, you are a sinner, ya say? What about yer wife-o? Is that OK? And what about flying from London to Stornaway? In country, is that ok? I've got a million of them, but Ima gettn bored.
Posted by: Al Aska Paul, Resident Imam || 07/24/2006 2:47 Comments || Top||

#9  #5 Seafarious,

In case you don't recognize that photo, it's actually the Archbishop hangin' loose with his self-proclaimed Druid friends.

Apparently, Anglicanism isn't enough for him; he has to dress like a pre-Christian "druid" and pretend to be some sort of priest from Stonehenge.

Like a sad group of Trekkies speaking "Klingon", if you ask me (and no one has). I believe the proper term in the Queen's English is "wanker".
Posted by: JDB || 07/24/2006 4:54 Comments || Top||

#10  The Bishop of London, who is married with four children, heads the church's 'Shrinking the Footprint' campaign

Shrking gis church's footprint I would say. Or enlarging Mr Bishop's assprint
Posted by: JFM || 07/24/2006 8:15 Comments || Top||

#11  gorb, actually it was 2 degrees when the contrails were absent after 11 Sep. Naturally the good bishop wouldn't care to have actual facts get in the way of his self-righteous argument...

Posted by: Swamp Blondie || 07/24/2006 8:46 Comments || Top||

#12  'The 40 per cent Church of England'

They are easilly going to eliminate 60% of current membership to make the goal.
Posted by: Inspector Clueso || 07/24/2006 8:52 Comments || Top||

#13  I agree, we should all be more eco-conscious. Which is why I say all Brits should stay home on Sundays thus saving the gas they'd otherwise use driving to this idiot's church.
Posted by: Broadhead6 || 07/24/2006 8:55 Comments || Top||

#14  I've begun to see "statistics" cited by "all the right people" that *nightime* contrails are bad and contribute to global warming, *daytime* contrails are good 'cos they reflect sunlight.

Sayonara, redeye flights to Europe and East Coast...
Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 9:30 Comments || Top||

#15  Sounds like kind of a fly-by-night theory to me...
Posted by: Flinelet Angavitle5908 || 07/24/2006 9:38 Comments || Top||

#16  Is this really another batty idea from the Church of England? I want to look at it from another point of view.

I suppose that the C of E believes that:

a. global warming exists. It is of man's making and it is a bad thing for the Earth (there is
something in Genesis about God handing over the responsibility for looking after the Earth to

b. individuals should then behave more responsibly towards this problem.

Note that the Bishop does not call flying specifically a sin, but a symptom of sin and with
regards to the meaning of sin itself, one could do no worse than read his second quote from the

"Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where
people ignore the consequences of their actions."

It is regrettable that the comments on the blog make no mention of these reasonable points.

P.S. Is the Blogmeister aware that the concept of Fatwa is exclusively an Islamic word and is
anthema to Christian thoughts, words and deeds?

Posted by: Anguus || 07/24/2006 10:35 Comments || Top||

#17  "To soak up its carbon emissions" (from flying to Spain example), "the family would need to spend an extra £17.30 to plant trees to 'neutralise' their emissions."

It's all nonsense, but if a family can afford to fly to Spain, they can easily afford $50 to plant a few trees. Might even be fun. So . . . fly around and plant trees. Sounds like a plan.
Posted by: ex-lib || 07/24/2006 10:40 Comments || Top||

#18  Next fatwa will forbid to eat beans, chickpeas and even potatoes because this produces greenhouse gasses.
Posted by: JFM || 07/24/2006 11:15 Comments || Top||

#16 Anguus---The poster "Anonymoose" used the term "fatwa" in the title of the article to get his point across.

It's subtle, like the p in swimming.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 07/24/2006 11:43 Comments || Top||

#20  Seafarious,

In case you don't recognize that photo, it's actually the Archbishop hangin' loose with his self-proclaimed Druid friends.

See how bad the Druids are for the environment? They oughtta be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 12:07 Comments || Top||

#21  In a highly controversial statement, Richard Chartres, 59 - who admits to regular visits to Russia...

So how does he get there?
From now on, make sure the sanctimonious prick walks.
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/24/2006 12:19 Comments || Top||

#22  Priest: "Owah!"
Response: "Oooo-wahhhh!"
Priest: "Tagoo!"
Response: "Ta-gooooo!"
Priest: "Siam!"
Response: "Siammmm!"

Posted by: mojo || 07/24/2006 13:30 Comments || Top||

#23  Which is why I say all Brits should stay home on Sundays thus saving the gas they'd otherwise use driving to this idiot's church.

I think that might include a few thousand people, all told. I believe that "Shrinking the Footprint" is already working, judging by active membership rolls.
Posted by: Xbalanke || 07/24/2006 18:18 Comments || Top||

#24  "To soak up its carbon emissions" (from flying to Spain example), "the family would need to spend an extra £17.30 to plant trees to 'neutralise' their emissions."

Careful, "they" might come up with some kind of "trees to cancel nighttime contrails" tax/charge. :-)
Posted by: gorb || 07/24/2006 19:52 Comments || Top||

#25  "Is the Blogmeister aware that the concept of Fatwa is exclusively an Islamic word and is anthema to Christian thoughts, words and deeds?"

I believe it is something called "irony". Something obviously lacking within your make-up.
Posted by: Fordesque || 07/24/2006 21:13 Comments || Top||

U.N.: N. Korea crop losses pose danger
SEOUL, South Korea - Heavy rains in North Korea have destroyed tens of thousands of acres of crops, threatening to worsen the impoverished country's food shortage, a U.N. agency said Monday.
They had "tens of thousands of acres of crops"?
Recent flooding that damaged about 74,000 acres of arable land could lead to the loss of 100,000 metric tons of food, according to a World Food Program report. The estimated loss equals about 10 percent of the gap in the country's annual food supply, Paul Risely, WFP's Asia spokesman.

"This is a real danger," Risely said. The flood damage "will increase the already substantial food gap in the harvest figures coming up for North Korea."
Read your UN phrase book. The correct term: "humanitarian crisis".
The food agency has said North Korea requires 5.5 million tons of food annually to feed its 23 million people but estimates the country can produce only about 4.5 million tons.

North Korea has relied on outside handouts since the 1990s, when as many as 2 million people are believed to have died because of famine caused by natural disasters and outdated farming methods.
"On the spot field guidance" by...someone?
South Korea, a key provider of rice and fertilizer aid, recently announced its intention to withhold rice aid to the North to protest the communist nation's test-firing of seven missiles earlier this month.

The U.N. agency's report said the floods also forced about 60,000 people from their homes, most of them in the central province of South Pyongan.

The agency plans to send 74 tons of mixed food supplies to the area and said it will provide more help when the North Korean government gives its approval. Pyongyang has not made an official appeal for international assistance, the report said.
Okay. We'll wait then...
"We expect to work very closely with the government ... to ensure that international aid can reach those people immediately who require immediate food assistance," Risely said.
Kimmie says the army's pretty hungry. And the missile techs, too.
Last week, the North's official Korean Central News Agency reported that heavy rains had left "hundreds" of people dead or missing. No precise casualty figures were given.
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/24/2006 13:37 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [389 views] Top|| File under:

#1  South Korea, a key provider of rice and fertilizer aid, recently announced its intention to withhold rice aid to the North to protest the communist nation's test-firing of seven missiles earlier this month.

This is very anti-Clintonian, but over time, will undoubtedly have the desired effect.

Posted by: Besoeker || 07/24/2006 14:51 Comments || Top||

#2  I envision a new UN program - "Trains for Food"...
Posted by: Raj || 07/24/2006 14:51 Comments || Top||

#3  Remember to include a few cases of Hennessy. No, double that - the new Mrs. likes it too.
Posted by: Kim Jung Il || 07/24/2006 21:25 Comments || Top||

#4  I envision a new UN program - "Trains for Food"...

How about "Trains and Food"?
Posted by: gorb || 07/24/2006 23:13 Comments || Top||

Down Under
Peace prize winner 'could kill' Bush
NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday, lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren. Campaigning on the rights of young people at the Earth Dialogues forum, being held in Brisbane, Ms Williams spoke passionately about the deaths of innocent children during wartime, particularly in the Middle East, and lambasted Mr Bush.

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64. "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

"I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

Ms Williams was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 30 years ago, when she circulated a petition to end violence in Northern Ireland after witnessing British soldiers shoot dead an IRA member who was driving a car. He veered on to the footpath, killing two children from one family instantly and fatally injuring a third. Ms Williams's petition had tens of thousands of Protestant and Catholic women walking the streets together in protest. Now the former office receptionist heads the World Centres of Compassion for Children International, a non-profit group working to create a political voice for children.

"My job is to tell you their stories," Ms Williams said of a recent trip to Iraq. "We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them, but they had cancers that the doctors couldn't even recognise. From the first Gulf War, the mothers' wombs were infected.
"As I was leaving the hospital, I said to the doctor, 'How many of these babies do you think are going to live?'

"He looked me straight in the eye and said, 'None, not one'. They needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three."
Old lefty saw and none of it true. The doc was lying; he had to or Sammy's police would kill him. All of this clap-trap has been proven wrong, and Iraqis themselves have denounced it.
Wrapping up the three-day forum yesterday, delegates agreed to a 26-point action plan. "There can be no sustainable peace while the majority of the world's population lives in poverty," they said. "There can be no sustainable peace if we fail to rise to the global challenge presented by climate change.

"There can be no sustainable peace while military spending takes precedence over human development."
"There can be no sustainable peace while islamofascists are killing non-Islamofascits."
Not that any of them will sell their own belongings and donate them to the third-world poor. That's for other suckers like us.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 07/24/2006 15:39 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [384 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Another ringing endorsement for the Nobel Peace Prize...
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/24/2006 15:53 Comments || Top||

#2  She clearly missed the point that the IRA driver was transporting mortars to bomb Britt schools or that Saddam gassed kids with no remorse, christ I could go on forever. Betty is just an idiot.
Posted by: 49 Pan || 07/24/2006 15:59 Comments || Top||

#3  About what I'd expect from a Nobel Peace Prize winner. *SPIT*

Stupid bitch.

Posted by: Flinelet Angavitle5908 || 07/24/2006 16:05 Comments || Top||

#4  "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."
Nobel peace laureate Betty Williams

No more needs to said about the worth of the Nobel Piece Prize.
Posted by: ed || 07/24/2006 16:13 Comments || Top||

#5  Right now, I would love to kill peace prize winners.
Posted by: DarthVader || 07/24/2006 16:21 Comments || Top||

#6  "There can be no sustainable peace while military spending takes precedence over human development."

No, there can be no sustainable peace as long as fanatics and idealists and criminals see peace and prosperity as the enemy. Military spending is the only way to ensure that sustainable peace comes to happen, anywhere and at any time.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 07/24/2006 16:26 Comments || Top||

#7  I totally agree with all these comments, 6 out of 6!
Posted by: Tony (UK) || 07/24/2006 16:50 Comments || Top||

#8  "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize,

Nor do we. Send it back, problem solved.
Posted by: Besoeker || 07/24/2006 16:53 Comments || Top||

#9  perfect graphic!
Posted by: 2b || 07/24/2006 16:55 Comments || Top||

#10  I think I can speak for the President when I say, "Bring it on, Betty."

I've got the popcorn concession.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 07/24/2006 17:58 Comments || Top||

#11  For her statement, she should be put on the watch list and definitely banned from coming to the USA.
Posted by: Penguin || 07/24/2006 18:03 Comments || Top||

#12  For her statement, she might win another one...
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/24/2006 21:22 Comments || Top||

#13  "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief. It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life."

Wonder what Ms. Williams stance is on abortion *ducks*
Posted by: BA || 07/24/2006 21:26 Comments || Top||

#14  Norwegians should be embarrassed what their countrymen have done with the Nobel Peace Prize. At least the Nobels given by the Swedes for the hard sciences still have a semblance of respect associated with them.
Posted by: RWV || 07/24/2006 23:48 Comments || Top||

Geldof cancels live concert after only 45 fans buy tickets
Posted by: Fred || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [249 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Italian newspapers contrasted the “Geldof fiasco” with the “collective hysteria” that greeted Robbie Williams at the weekend when more than 70,000 fans turned out in 40C (104F) to hear him at the San Siro stadium in Milan.

Just who is this Robbie Williams fellow that I sometimes read about?

Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 0:11 Comments || Top||

#2  ROBIN WILLIAMS > "CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC" - feel the power and fury of the letter C in "political C-orrectness. Show dem white teeth, let the spit fly. Now comes LITTLE MAN, the movie.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 07/24/2006 1:06 Comments || Top||

#3  Robbie Williams used to be in the boyband Take That. Now he's a big-selling solo artiste, popular with young ladies of all descriptions. Unlike Bob Geldof, who is rubbish.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 1:14 Comments || Top||

#4  Hey, I'm ashamed, I downloaded a few RW songs on emule, his crooner covers, like the one with Nicole Kidman... and I enjoyed them. Dam, I must be gay, and I never knew it.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 07/24/2006 2:03 Comments || Top||

#5  anonymous5089, don't worry about it, Robbie's song "Radio" was actually pretty good! And going to a Robbie concert is not a bad idea either, as you're surrounded by babes on all sides.
Posted by: Kali || 07/24/2006 2:19 Comments || Top||

#6  Man, I really don't like mondays...
Oh well, as my agent says, "bad breath is better than no breath at all..."
Posted by: Bob Geldof || 07/24/2006 8:38 Comments || Top||

#7  I don't think I've ever heard a Robbie Williams song on the radio, or seen a video on the TV.
He is strictly a Brit phenomenon?
Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 9:31 Comments || Top||

#8  Geldof is who again?
Posted by: Besoeker || 07/24/2006 10:17 Comments || Top||

#9  The Live Aid guy, knighted by the Queen
Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 10:21 Comments || Top||

#10  Bob Geldof- Boomtown Rats
Robbie Williams - "Milleneum" may be his poppiest pop hit.
And the chicks do seem to dig him, even though he seems about as charasmatic to me as the guy in the mail room.
Posted by: Capsu 78 || 07/24/2006 10:36 Comments || Top||

#11  For which the guy in the mail room is no doubt grateful, #10. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 07/24/2006 15:28 Comments || Top||

India tests surface-to-air Trishul missile
NEW DELHI - India on Sunday test-fired its indigenously built Trishul surface-to-air missile from a defence facility in the eastern Orissa state. The short-range missile, which means trident in Hindi, was fired from a mobile launcher at the test range in Chandipur, 220 kilometres northeast of the state capital Bhubaneswar.

The missile was targeted at a micro-light aircraft, the PTI news agency reported, quoting defence sources. Powered by a two-stage solid propellant engine, Trishul was fired over a range of nine kilometres and its range can be enhanced with the completion of the trials, PTI said.

Trishul, designed for the Indian navy, is designed to hit low-level targets, protecting naval vessels from missiles. The missile, variants of which are being developed for the army and air force, is tested at regular intervals. The Trishul project was initiated in 1984 and is one of India’s longest missile development projects.
Posted by: Steve White || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [388 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Trishul Surface-to-Air missile test fired again

India's sophisticated short-range surface-to-air missile Trishul was test-fired twice from the integrated test range at Chandipur-on-sea, about 15 km from Balasore, Orissa on Monday, defence sources said.

It was the second time since Sunday that the test was conducted. The missile was test-fired from a mobile launcher at 2.15 pm. A second missile was released after a few seconds. Both times, a micro-light aircraft in the sky was made the target, the sources said.

Trishul, which has a range of nine km and is powered by a two-stage solid propellant system, is indigenously developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

About three metres in length and 200 mm in diameter, the missile flies at supersonic speed and can carry a 15 kg payload. The missile's range could be enhanced after completion of few other trials, the sources said.

Trishul has triple battlefield role for the army, air force and navy and can engage targets like aircraft and helicopters by using its radar command-to-line-of-sight guidance.

With a high manoeuvrability, the missile had been flight tested in the sea-skimming role and also against moving targets earlier.

Trishul forms part of India's guided missile development programme under which four other missiles -- Agni, Prithvi, Akash and Nag -- have been developed or are being developed.

The missile has a sensitive radar-altimeter and height lock-loop control onboard for the naval version. The army variant, Trishul Combat Vehicle, is based on a tracked BMP-1 infantry combat vehicle and houses all equipment including radars, command-guidance system and missiles, sources said.
Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 10:05 Comments || Top||

#2  radar command-to-line-of-sight guidance?
Posted by: RWV || 07/24/2006 23:45 Comments || Top||

India-Iran gas pipeline deal in trouble
NEW DELHI - An ambitious deal to build a gas pipeline between India and Iran through Pakistan has run into trouble, Iran’s foreign minister was quoted as saying on Sunday. Oil ministers from the three countries are set to meet in Teheran early next month over a pricing dispute and ways to build the 2,775-kilometer (1,735-mile) line across rugged terrain and heavily militarized frontiers.

The pipeline situation is “a little bit complicated because of the changing of circumstances from the time when the contract and agreement was signed,” Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on the New Delhi Television news channel. “I think both sides found out that there are some specific difficulties to implementing the project agreement as it is now,” Mottaki said.

Iran wants the gas price linked to international oil prices, and is offering India gas at US$7.20 (Ð6) per million British thermal units, with a 3 percent annual increase, an Indian official said earlier this month. But India says it’s only ready to pay up to US$4.25 (Ð3.54) per million Btu for the desperately needed gas, the official said.

The US$8 billion (Ð6.6 billion) pipeline was scheduled to be running by 2011. The pipeline would supply about 60 million cubic meters (78.5 million cubic yards) of gas a day to India and up to 30 million cubic meters (39.2 million cubic yards) a day to Pakistan.
Posted by: Steve White || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [253 views] Top|| File under:

#1  No pipeline and no LNG via tanker.
Looks like Indo-Iranian relations are going rapidly downhill...

Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 0:19 Comments || Top||

#2  Nice target---a long pipeline, or an LNG tank. The gas ain't going nowhere.
Posted by: Al Aska Paul, Resident Imam || 07/24/2006 2:50 Comments || Top||

#3  It still blows my mind that Iran needs to import gasoline. i.e. the gasoline flows FROM India TO Iran.
Posted by: Snavique Elmaimp7924 || 07/24/2006 6:32 Comments || Top||

#4  #3 - I think this is about natural gas (not gasoline) - gasoline isn't usually discussed in terms of cost per Btu.

Iran is trying to sell and pipe gas to India.

Good luck with that.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 07/24/2006 20:42 Comments || Top||

Benazir to Run for PM Post If ARD Wins
Benazir Bhutto will be the candidate for the post of prime minister if the PPPP and its allies win the next general elections, leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party-Parliamentarians (PPPP) in the National Assembly Makhdoom Amin Fahim said . "A section of the press has reported that the ARD has decided to nominate me for the post of prime minister. This is not correct," Fahim said. He said that Benazir Bhutto is the chairperson of the ARD since she is the chief of the PPP and he worked as her deputy.
Posted by: Fred || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [261 views] Top|| File under:

India, Israel Propose Joint Electronic Warfare Venture

India and Israel want to set up a joint venture to develop advanced electronic warfare (EW) systems for their air forces’ fighter aircraft.

The proposed joint venture, the creation of which would cost around $100 million, is expected to get the go-ahead shortly with a signed deal between India’s Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), Bangalore, and the Elisra Group, Bene Beraq, Israel.

Seventy percent of the venture will be funded by DARE, which is part of the state-run Defence Research and Development Organisation, with Elisra paying the remaining 30 percent.

A senior DARE scientist said the proposed venture likely will get off the ground in the next three to six months at DARE facilities in Bangalore.

Elisra will develop approach warning systems, radar jamming pods and other systems, while DARE will develop cooling systems, electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic susceptibility systems, as well as system integration in the aircraft.

The program is to be fully operational in three years

The scientist said this venture will see an advanced EW system called MAYAVI developed for India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that Israel plans to buy from the United States.

The EW system will feature advanced radar warning, radar jamming, and electronic combat and self-protection systems. It also will have an Integrated Defensive Electronic Radio Frequency Countermeasures system to help protect the LCA against radar-guided missiles.

Its Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures will protect aircraft against heat-seeking missiles, and be paired with the Common Missile Warning System.

“We are collaborating with Indian agencies for a number of defense programs, but, as per company policy, we do not discuss specific programs,” an Elisra executive here said. The executive added that DARE was selected as a partner after trying several other defense partners in the world.

A senior Indian Defence Ministry official said India wants to forge alliances with Israeli companies to develop a variety of high-end defense technologies so that the Indian Defence Forces do not have to depend on the West for critical technologies.

Elisra has helped DARE in the past to develop an EW system called Tempest for the MiG-21 bis fighter upgrade program. EW systems from Elisra also are being supplied for the licensed production in India of 140 Sukhoi Su-31 MKI aircraft at Hindustan Aeronautics, Bangalore.

The Defence Ministry official said India has procured an unspecified number of EW suites from Israel for LCA prototypes, but declined to elaborate.
Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 18:22 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [2485 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Muslim seething in 1,2,3
Posted by: john || 07/24/2006 19:31 Comments || Top||

#2  I believe that's in 1, john.
Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 19:33 Comments || Top||

#3  wow. Israeli and Indian 21st century engineers vs. a culture that aspires to the greatness of the 7th century.
Posted by: PlanetDan || 07/24/2006 20:41 Comments || Top||

Science & Technology
US to test MOAB on Hurricanes
In an effort to combat the devastating effects of category 5 hurricanes, New Tech Spy has learned from well connected DoD sources, that the US Department of Homeland Security has teamed with the US Air Force, in a secret mission called “Operation Dark Sky”. Dark Sky’s purpose is to test the effectiveness of the newly developed MOAB fuel air explosive on the destructive eye wall of selected hurricanes, in an effort to disrupt the central core’s development and diminish its intensity. The program will begin this summer, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, and extend through the 2006 hurricane season.
Mad Mullahs™ take note.
The GBU-43/B (MOAB), “Massive Ordnance Air Blast” was developed in the run-up to the Iraq war, but was never used in battle. The 21,000 pound fuel air bomb works by first dispersing an aerosol cloud of tritonal, which is then set off by a secondary explosion. The force of the explosion creates a massive pressure wave unlike that of any other conventional bomb, and makes it an ideal platform for US scientists to test on the different types of atmospheric conditions created in a hurricane.

The initial program calls for five GBU-43’s to be dropped in 30 minute intervals on the leading eye wall of the hurricane. Specially modified C-130 aircraft will deliver the satellite-guided bombs in altitudes ranging from 8,000 to 30,000 feet, the effect will be measured by hurricane hunter planes and weather satellites. The secret operation will not be disclosed to the American people unless it is a complete success, but that might not be known for months or perhaps even years of study, which will certainly add to the intrigue and speculation surrounding “Dark Sky”, America’s big little secret.
Posted by: DanNY || 07/24/2006 10:41 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [454 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This is idiotic: won't the high winds disperse the aerosol cloud before the secondary detonation takes place?
Posted by: Ptah || 07/24/2006 11:20 Comments || Top||

#2  So powerful, even hurricanes can not stand against it!
Posted by: DarthVader || 07/24/2006 11:21 Comments || Top||

#3  The winds in the eye of a hurricane are relatively calm. So the fuel/air mixture might not be dispersed. However, the eye can be several miles across. I realize that the MOAB can have a wide area effect, but I don't think it will extend for miles.

People tend to forget that hurricanes are BIG. They can extend for hundreds of miles, which is one of the things that makes them so destructive. Somehow I doubt that even a MOAB will have any real effect.

Besides, the service ceiling for a C-130 is 33,000 feet. If they are going to set off the MOAB at 30,000 feet, it will likely ruin the whole day for the crew.
Posted by: Rambler || 07/24/2006 11:28 Comments || Top||

#4  Party pooper.
Posted by: Seafarious || 07/24/2006 11:43 Comments || Top||

#5  BS. Is newtechspy.com one of those conspiracy sites? Truly pissing into the ocean and expecting it turn yellow. A 20 megaton bomb releases less energy than a medium hurricanes does in 15 minutes.
Posted by: ed || 07/24/2006 11:47 Comments || Top||

#6  Other fact checks:

*MOAB uses an ammonium nitrate slurry, not fuel-air explosive.

* Fuel-air explosives can't be used in windy conditions.
Posted by: Phil || 07/24/2006 11:53 Comments || Top||

#7  You know, they considered using nukes to do this back in the 50's/60's but decided against it. Clearly some of the Air Force just hasn't let go of the idea. While at first it does seem silly, consider how many of the ideas we've had 30 years ago we didn't have the Tech for then, we do now and they're reappearing.

Be interesting to see how this pans out.
Posted by: Silentbrick || 07/24/2006 12:15 Comments || Top||

#8  Man, living just 25 miles from Raleigh, that headline made me sweat for a moment.
Posted by: mrp || 07/24/2006 12:20 Comments || Top||

#9  Doing this without an environmental impact statement would be illegal.

Doing this with an environmental impact statement would require 20 years to process the statement.
Posted by: mhw || 07/24/2006 12:21 Comments || Top||

#10  Fine with me.
Does Tehran get lots of hurricanes?
Posted by: tu3031 || 07/24/2006 12:22 Comments || Top||

#11  The initial program calls for five GBU-43’s to be dropped in 30 minute intervals on the leading eye wall of the hurricane.

I already knew about the relative calm within the Eye of the Hurricane itself. Note the bold part above that I keyed my criticism on.

Posted by: Ptah || 07/24/2006 12:28 Comments || Top||

#12  Since when do the Feds care so much about ice hockey?
Posted by: SLO Jim || 07/24/2006 12:33 Comments || Top||

#13  Why Hurricanes? Bomb Messerchmitts and Zeros instead.
Posted by: JFM || 07/24/2006 12:43 Comments || Top||

#14  Phil,

Re: factchecks

1. The Aluminum Nitrate Slurry gets atomised by the initial blast and then is ignited by a secondary explosion. That is the classic definition of a fuel air explosive.

2. As in physics, everything is relative. When trying to hit a stationary target in high wind conditions the probability that the winds will disperse your agent away from the target is high. But when your target is the movement itself, the dispersal of the agent in a constant velocity wind will still retain a cohesive structure. In other words if the weapon is traveling at or near the same speed as the wind the wind itself has no effect.

Not saying this is for real, just trying to keep the discussion on a factual basis.
Posted by: DanNY || 07/24/2006 12:49 Comments || Top||

#15  Waste of effort, a hurricane will overpower the blast without noticing.

Try a 350kT warhead, guys.
Posted by: mojo || 07/24/2006 13:27 Comments || Top||

#16  What happens if you do this and you piss the Hurricane off and it gets stronger. :)
Posted by: djohn66 || 07/24/2006 14:03 Comments || Top||

#17  Waste of effort, a hurricane will overpower the blast without noticing.

Try a 350kT warhead, guys.


But seriously (kinda), this all smacks of Jonah Goldberg's running joke about airborne laser volcano lancing.
Posted by: SLO Jim || 07/24/2006 14:05 Comments || Top||

#18  I think I see the rationale here. Fuel air explosives, typically "propane bombs" are double concussion blasts. First they create a massive overpressure, followed by a just-as-destructive implosion created by the enormous resulting vacuum.

In the leading eye wall of the hurricane this would, they hope, first "rupture" the eye outward, then suck both ruptured ends inward, making it hard for them to rejoin.

I've no idea whether or not it would work.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 07/24/2006 14:26 Comments || Top||

#19  Dan: Ammonium nitrate isn't used in fuel-air explosives. It especially doesn't work well when atomized and dispersed.
Posted by: Phil || 07/24/2006 14:36 Comments || Top||

#20  Spare the hurricane, just MOAB New Orleans in advance next time.
Posted by: Besoeker || 07/24/2006 14:48 Comments || Top||

#21  I double-checked, and found out that the bomb in question doesn't use ammonium nitrate either. It is still not a fuel-air device. Here's a link.
Posted by: Phil || 07/24/2006 15:01 Comments || Top||

#22  When I was a kid, the Blackhawks, my comic book heros, used to fly their jets through tornados to break the cicular wind. And of course, the Blackhawks never failed.
I figured that nothing like this has ever been tried is because some ass actually flew through a tornado and POP - WOOOSH, disappeared.
Posted by: wxjames || 07/24/2006 15:08 Comments || Top||

#23  Have no idea whether this would work or not (doubt it would) but some of you are looking at it the wrong way. It has nothing to do with the relative energy emitted by the hurricane vs the moab. It's all about the eye of the hurricane being a low pressure pocket maintained by the spinning force of the hurricane. If you could possible poke a whole in the eye by temporarily stopping even a small part of it from spinning the high pressure would swarm in and fill out the whole dispersing the hurricane... think of a ballon being popped by a pin but only in reverse (where the area outside the ballon is the eye). A tiny hole and the ballons pressure equalizes with what's around it very quickly even though the ballon has exponentially more energy in it than the pin that popped it applied.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 07/24/2006 15:31 Comments || Top||

#24  But it's NOT a balloon, it's a storm running off of surface heat and spun by velocity differentials between the north and south edges.
Posted by: mojo || 07/24/2006 16:06 Comments || Top||

#25  Think of it like a bathtub drain. Even if the wall is disrupted, it will still form again because of the huge inward rotating mass of the hurricane is self sustaining as long as there is a lower pressure and rising water vapor in the center.
Posted by: ed || 07/24/2006 16:39 Comments || Top||

#26  Hurricanes do distribute heat energy over the surface of the globe. This is a useful thing. Hurricanes are obviously terrible things for the people who get hit with one, but, would there not be unintended effects from not disbursing that heat?
Posted by: Chert || 07/24/2006 16:42 Comments || Top||

#27  I suspect this might work. Hurricanes take a long time to get organized and their organization is fragile. Break the eye wall and multiple mini-eyes might form, which disrupt each other and reduce destructive winds around the eye.
Posted by: phil_b || 07/24/2006 16:46 Comments || Top||

#28  Hurricanes serve a purpose: correction of atmospheric imbalance. Don't mess with mother nature, but do make those levies strong.
Posted by: Griper Whegum8464 || 07/24/2006 17:06 Comments || Top||

#29  More heat is not the answer. Several million tons of blue ice would work tho.
Posted by: 6 || 07/24/2006 17:59 Comments || Top||

#30  Methinks the source for this nonsense isn't credible.
Posted by: Penguin || 07/24/2006 18:05 Comments || Top||

#31  2-1 on , wont work
30-1 , will work

any takers ?!
Posted by: Taking Bets || 07/24/2006 19:48 Comments || Top||

#32  It's been noted in past that one thing that has a proven effect on hurricanes is -- plankton.

A plankton bloom can raise surface water temperature over a wide are by one or two degrees, which can raise a hurricane by an entire catagory.

This being said, a while back a scientist had an idea of how to cause more precipitation inland by breaking up the surface layer of sea water, which significantly increases surface evaporation. A row of verticle windmills that pump seawater and atomize it into a mist.

The mist falls back down, breaking up this few millimeter thick layer on the water, which then increases evaporation enormously. This was the effect he wanted, but it would also lower surface temperatures over a large area, which would take away a lot of the "fuel" from a hurricane.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 07/24/2006 19:56 Comments || Top||

#33  #28: "Don't mess with mother nature, but do make those levies strong."

Smarter move, GW, would be to not live below sea level.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 07/24/2006 20:38 Comments || Top||

#34  Hear, hear, Barb. I'd rather them use those MOABs on the levees and just let N.O. flood out and "return to nature." A lot more swamp wetlands, and it's just a matter of time before she gets nailed again. She's already sinking fast, and even without hurricanes helping out, would be an island (surrounded by levees) in a few more hundred years.
Posted by: BA || 07/24/2006 21:21 Comments || Top||

#35  Phil,

You're right it's not a fuel air explosive.
I dunno where I heard that but I was convinced it was.
Thanks for straightening that out.
Posted by: DanNY || 07/24/2006 21:41 Comments || Top||

#36  From Wikipedia:

Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 trillion joules per day. For comparison, this rate of energy release is equivalent to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes or 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity.

You'd have better luck trying to stop a diesel locomotive with a spit ball.

Posted by: DMFD || 07/24/2006 23:31 Comments || Top||

Plane envy: Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane
Posted by: BrerRabbit || 07/24/2006 07:02 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [322 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I think it will be a disaster for the same (economic) reasons the A380 is a disaster.

Planes should be seen more like buses than trains.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles || 07/24/2006 9:50 Comments || Top||

#2  FUD
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 07/24/2006 9:56 Comments || Top||

#3  looks like it might be a good cargo jet, for passengers I guess windows will be a premium...

nice bait for terrorist tho..
Posted by: RD || 07/24/2006 10:01 Comments || Top||

#4  The economics are route-based. It will not be a big seller, relatively speaking, but for transcontinental and intercontinental routes it will sell - precisely targetting the same ones as the A380: the wing width will have the same airport clearance issues.

I'm curious about the outer tips at the back of the wedge... If you don't use different flying techniques, i.e. rudder skidding vs rolls to turn, then the outer rear tips look like they might be an E-Ticket ride, LOL.
Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 || 07/24/2006 10:07 Comments || Top||

#5  This article has been referenced on Rantburg at least two months ago.

THis plane has something for she: it is far cooler to fly on that ovni-like plane than on a tubular design like Airbus 400. Suddnly classic airplanes as obsolete as biplanes.

Small problem is that pilots will have to roll slooooowly before turning since passengers are much farther of the axis of the plane. In other words once it has banked this plane could probably turn as tight as the A400 but entering the turn must be much more gradual. This can be a problem on some airports.

But if Boeing solves the engineering problems and completes the design then I am reserving my ticket now.
Posted by: JFM || 07/24/2006 10:42 Comments || Top||

#6  And after the airports modify their facilities for the A380, Boeing can just drop in with their compatible design!

Who am I kidding...Boeing will find some way to screw it up.
Posted by: gromky || 07/24/2006 11:01 Comments || Top||

#7  Three things make me wonder about this:

1. The fuselage shape will require major changes to jetway design at airports to accomodate larger numbers of passengers dismbarking from locations that are inaccessible to current jetways.

2. I'd like to be reassured that the placement of the engines above and behind the wing/body is not conducive to compressor stall at high angles of attack.

3. Although current aircraft designs have fewer windows to seats than was the case in the past. This design will set a new low for the ratio. I, for one, prefer my window seat to an aisle or crunched in the midst of others.

I do, however, think it has great potential for a cargo aircraft. Think of all the Strykers that will no longer have a problem squeezing into the cigar tube of a C-130...
Posted by: DanNY || 07/24/2006 11:49 Comments || Top||

#8  I wonder if the blended wing design can be applied to smaller, more practical jets, for operating efficiency. Got to work on the passenger window problem, though.

RD is right about the 797: it is terrorist bait.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 07/24/2006 11:51 Comments || Top||

#9  Wonder how many JDAMs one of these could carry?
Posted by: RWV || 07/24/2006 13:06 Comments || Top||

#10  AP,

I'm positive it can.

Posted by: DanNY || 07/24/2006 13:07 Comments || Top||

#11  Wonder how many JDAMs one of these could carry?

There was a proposal floated a while back for a B-747 bomber: a 747 with the whole fuselage taken up by a big honkin' weapons bay, for use as a long-loiter JDAM-dispenser in conditions of air supremacy. I could see this boy doing something similar; with mid-air refuelling and a relief crew or two, she could stay on station for days.
Posted by: Mike || 07/24/2006 13:26 Comments || Top||

#12  The article suggests substantial efficiency gains. If (and I agree its a big IF) the design translates to reality, this could be reduced in scope and adapted to smaller vehicles (perhaps the replacement for the 737). In any event, this would also Kill further substantial interest in the A380 going forward.
Posted by: Good Captain || 07/24/2006 13:58 Comments || Top||

#13  There are limits to how far down the design scales. One of the tradeoffs is cabin spaciousness for windows. In the large scale, it is sufficiently sapcious that the lack of windows is not perceived as a problems by most travellers. But as the aircraft gets smaller, that openness is reduced without a comparable increase in access to windows.

This technology has been around for 50 years. There must be a reason why no airliner, or bomber, has been built in this configuration till now. I still call FUD.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 07/24/2006 14:09 Comments || Top||

#14  Small problem is that pilots will have to roll slooooowly before turning since passengers are much farther of the axis of the plane.

But on another side this plane would have afr lower wing load than the Airbus so it should require less banking for a turn of equl radius. This would partly offset the fact that you cannot bank at the same angualr speed (without harming passengers) with a blended wing plane than with a tubular one.
Posted by: JFM || 07/24/2006 14:17 Comments || Top||

#15  The early bwb plans from a few years back called for external cameras to wide plasma screens on the interior to compensate for few windows.
Posted by: 3dc || 07/24/2006 14:19 Comments || Top||

#16  I'd trade a window seat for a small room any day. Any thought to bringing comfortable flying to the masses? I didn't think so.
Posted by: Perfesser || 07/24/2006 14:46 Comments || Top||

#17  I believe back in 1948, Northrup made the Flying Wing. The Gov made them stop because people were complaining about seeing UFOs. How childish.
Northrup had to give up on an efficient spacious reliable flying design. They were made to be bombers and the wing was about 6 feet high inside. It's out there somewhere.
Posted by: wxjames || 07/24/2006 15:13 Comments || Top||

#18  Northrup XB-35 and YB-49
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 07/24/2006 15:24 Comments || Top||

#19  I agree with NS. FUD.
Posted by: 11A5S || 07/24/2006 15:33 Comments || Top||

#20  My mommy worked on the X-B 35.
Had a little gold pin.
If I have to sit in the wing I will crap myself.
Posted by: J. D. Lux || 07/24/2006 18:35 Comments || Top||

Girl, 19, to hang in Iran
A GIRL of 19 faces being hanged in Iran for a crime she didn't commit. Delara Darabi was just 17 when her boyfriend, Amir Hossein, persuaded her to confess to a murder he committed. Believing she was saving him from execution and that she would be freed because of her youth, she told a judge she had broken into a house and killed a woman.
Probably a bad idea to confess to a capital crime in a dictatorship, especially if you didn't commit one.
Hossein, 19, was jailed for 10 years. Now human rights group Amnesty International has launched a campaign to free Delara, whose last-ditch appeal begins next month. Spokesman Neil Durkin said: "We want Sunday Mirror readers to add their voices to the 2,000 appeals already sent by our members to the Iranian authorities."

Iran has signed an international treaty promising not to execute minors. Instead it imprisons them until they are 18 before ordering their deaths.
I'm sure they think that's all tidy and legal.
Posted by: Steve White || 07/24/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [265 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Iran has signed an international treaty promising not to execute minors. Instead it imprisons them until they are 18 before ordering their deaths.

As usual. All the right words, all the wrong understandings and intentions.
Posted by: gorb || 07/24/2006 2:37 Comments || Top||

Who's in the News

E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Gulf War I
The Way We Were

Hair Through the Ages

On Sale now!

A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Scooter McGruder
john frum
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Frank G
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Mon 2006-07-24
  Hamas, I-J rocket Sderot. Surprise.
Sun 2006-07-23
  Israel seizes Maroun al-Ras
Sat 2006-07-22
  Gaza groups agree to stop firing at Israel
Fri 2006-07-21
  Ethiopia enters Somalia to back government
Thu 2006-07-20
  Siniora pleads for world's help
Wed 2006-07-19
  IAF foils rocket transports from Syria
Tue 2006-07-18
  Israel flattens Paleo foreign ministry, Hamas offices
Mon 2006-07-17
  Israel attacks Beirut airport with four missiles
Sun 2006-07-16
  Chechens Ready to Hang it Up
Sat 2006-07-15
  IDF targets Beirut, Tripoli ports & Hizbollah leadership
Fri 2006-07-14
  IAF Booms Hezbollah HQ, Misses Nasrallah
Thu 2006-07-13
  Israel bombs Beirut airport, embargos coast
Wed 2006-07-12
  IDF Re-Engages Lebanon, Reserves Called Up
Tue 2006-07-11
  163 dead in Mumbai train booms
Mon 2006-07-10
  Shamil breathes dirt!

Better than the average link...

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
WoT Operations (35)    WoT Background (23)    Opinion (11)    Local News (7)    (0)