I was sorry to hear that Robin Cook croaked. When he was alive I wanted to toss him into a vat of hot tar, to make him howl; but now he’s a stiff I realise what a loss he is to our nation.
– Harry Hutton
|
|||||
|
August 8th, 2005 | 14 comments - (Comments are closed)
 It is splendid news that the trapped Russian submariners have been rescued from the dreadful fate that overtook the Kursk a few years ago. Fortunately the Russians did not stand on their pride as they did the last time they suffered a sub-aquatic disaster. This time they seem to have fairly quickly accepted the help that was offered to them by many navies around the world. Although the Royal Navy’s robotic sub was the prime mover of this rescue, it was really a very international effort with the USA and Japan providing vital assistance in the rescue. Hopefully this more enlightened approach by the Russian government and military authorities admitting they could not effect the rescue themselves is a sign of institutional change at the top, but the cynic in me wonders if it was not just a domestic political calculation that the embarrassment at having to have their submariners rescued by Western naval personnel represented less political damage than another scene on the television of angry family members on the dockside grieving over their dead sons. August 7th, 2005 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
Via Dave Barry, I found my way to this story, which seems to have escaped the attention so far of such dedicated Euroblogs as this one:
A good way – not the only way but a good way – to understand the atmosphere of politics in any particular year in these times of ours is to ask: how old is the Baby Boom? The Baby Boom is now nearly sixty. The men are at the pub, and the women are shrieking jealously that those strumpets behind the bar should stop flaunting themselves. But because in their youth these same now-jealous frumps scorned such puritanical opinions – and indeed did their share of breast baring themselves, at pop festivals and the like – they have to find a new way to say this boring old stuff. So, rather than talking the language of morals and of traditional decency, like grannies used to, they reach instead for health, the great modern excuse for ancient animosities and prohibitions. It is partly to feelings like this that the EUroprats, of all ages and both genders, are now appealing. And partly, of course, they just want to boss people around for the sheer sake of it. August 7th, 2005 | 29 comments - (Comments are closed)
There has been quite a bit of press coverage in the last couple of weeks about the discovery of an object in the outer solar system, which has been given the astronomical name 2003 UB313, but which has been popularly dubbed “Xena”. In some circles this has been described as a new planet, and in others its discovery has been given as comprehensive proof that Pluto is not a planet and that there are only eight planets in the solar system. Personally I have two opinions here. Firstly, I think it should be “Rupert” and not “Xena”. And of the two viewpoints given, I tend to agree with the second, which is that the new discovery reduces the number of planets to eight. Although thinking about it some more, I am not sure that either viewpoint is right. A better interpretation might be that it reduces the number of planets to four. Or perhaps to zero. It all depends on your point of view. Why do I think this? In order to properly understand the question, an astronomical primer is in order. Many of our readers will already know this stuff, but this is all quite interesting and is nice to put it all down in one place. Let me describe the solar system. For the moment, I am going to leave Pluto out, as it does not fit into what I am to initially describe. The solar system is generally considered to contain two types of planet. One is the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars). These orbit the sun at distances between 50 million kilometres and 250 million kilometres, and have radii of between 2500km and 6500km. They have surfaces made of solid materials (ie rock) . The second type of planet is the “Gas Giants” (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). These orbit the sun at distances of between 0.75 billion and 4.5 billion kilometres, and have radii of between 25000 and 70000 kilometres. They basically consist of atmospheres that get denser and denser as the altitude gets lower and lower, and which gradually thicken until at some rather indeterminate point they go from being a gas to a liquid to a solid or to even more exotic things that defy simple classification. These planets are orbited by many small rocky moons, and planetary rings. Three of them (Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune) are also orbited by larger moons that would count as planets in their own right if they orbited the sun and were part of the inner solar system. The orbits of these planets (of both kinds, but with one exception that we will get to) have two notable facts about them. First, they all circle the sun in approximately the same plane, known as the “plane of the ecliptic” or just “the ecliptic”. As a consequence, if there are a number of planets visible in the sky at the same time, they tend to be in a fairly straight line. Secondly, the orbits of the planets are approximately circular. But they are not exactly circular, and they are not exactly in the same plane. Mathematicians have ways of quantifying both these things. The first of these is relatively simple. Simply measure the angle between the ecliptic and the plane of the planet’s orbit, and quote this number as the orbital inclination. With the exception that I will get to in a moment, the planets discussed already have small orbital inclinations of up to about three and a half degrees. See here for detailed planetary statistics of various kinds, including inclination. While Copernicus was the first modern scientist to recognise that the Earth and other planets went around the sun, his theory did not quite successfully explain the movements of the planets in the heavens. That took someone with better mathematics. → Continue reading: There are more things in heaven than were dreamed of in the philosophy I was taught at school August 7th, 2005 | 19 comments - (Comments are closed)
One commentator this week suggested that Mr Blair’s administration is taking its anti-terrorism policy from Samizdata. I don’t think so. A copy of The Times for March 3rd 2009 has fallen into my hands:
August 7th, 2005 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
That is a variation on what Sir Alex Ferguson said after Manchester United sneaked a 2-1 win over Bayern Munich in the 1999 final, I think it was, of the European Champions Cup/League/whatever they call it nowadays, with two late late goals in time added on for injuries. This morning, England were overwhelming favourites to wrap this up by a hundred odd runs, with only two tail end wickets to get. But nobody had told the Assie batsmen that they were tail enders. They batted like batsmen, in conditions which, unlike yesterday when seventeen wickets fell, suddenly looked perfect for batting again. Shane Warne, having got himself out like a pub amateur in the first innings, batted beautifully, until, unbelievably, he was out hit wicket. He kicked his stumps over! And with sixty more runs needed that looked to be it. England were about to win a meaningful test match against Australia by fifty odd runs. Hurrah! When was the last time that happened? But Lee and Kasparowicz carried right on. There was a close LBW that might have been given. A dropped catch at third man. And suddenly Australia were only one edged four from a win that would have given them a 2-0 lead in the Ashes series and England the biggest kick in the stomach in many a year. But then, Kaspar fended off yet another short ball from Harmison, Jones the Gloves held onto it, show-off umpire Billy Bowden raised his finger, and it was suddenly 1-1 when 2-0 to the Aussies looked a certainty. Two runs. Two runs!! Second narrowest test match win ever, apparently. This has been a terrific game, which quite blotted me off the Samizdata screen for the duration. The commentators have a concept which they sometimes wheel out called the “champagne moment” of the match. Well this match had two champagne moments at least that will live long in the cricketing memory. There was Warne’s ball that bowled Strauss round his legs on Friday just before the close (Warne’s bowling throughout was a wonder), leaving England jittery instead of confident coming into Saturday. And then there was the perfect slower ball that Harmison bowled Clarke with, with the last ball of yesterday, which seemed to make England’s task this morning easy. There was the great game-turning over by Flintoff, which took Australia from 47-0 to 48-2 (Langer and Ponting) yesterday afternoon. There were eighteen sixes in this game, which is almost two per session, i.e. two more than you usually get. And just to put the cherry on the cake, that geek-maniac Hughes who works for Channel 4 reckons that the final Jones catch was not out, because Kasparowicz’s hand was not touching the bat when the ball hit it. That LBW, on the other hand… There have been the usual crop of umpiring disagreements with the technologically better informed commentators, and they really must give the umpires the same toys as the commentators have. You do not have to know what hit wicket or LBW or third man means to get the idea. Just translate all of the above into your preferred sport, and slap a hellishly tight finish on the end. It really is humiliating how much this nonsense still matters to me. I keep telling myself that it – test match cricket between Australia and England – is only a game. Which is true. And King Lear is only a play, and Asia is only a continent. And because of this particular only-a-game game, the rest of this Ashes series is going to twist my guts around for many more weeks yet. Plenty more on this game here. August 7th, 2005 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Here is a good article in the National Interest demonstrating how private sector peacekeeping is much better than its UN equivalent. To quote,
The article argues that the United Nations, only as good as the resources that its members bring to the table, is a useful framework for co-ordinating security co-operation, but argues that its peacekeeping capabilities should be privatised. As they say, from a humanitarian perspective, this is long overdue. August 6th, 2005 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
“The Central American Free Trade Agreement is just at the beginning of a century of trade liberalisation, more significant and powerful than any previous wave of liberalisation. Europe and Britain can either choose to follow the path of America, Asia and China, or it should prepare for a century of decline. If the EU is to avoid long-term economic stagnation, it has to welcome globalisation – not fight it.” – Alex Singleton writing in The Business newspaper. August 6th, 2005 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
Lords Chancellors are political appointees, and certainly should not be idealised. But our Dear Leader is widely believed not to know or care about the past. So that the following dialogue is fiction should not be a problem.
— Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons Or is it more important to look tough and caution be damned? August 6th, 2005 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
And that is exactly what Kamal Aboukhater, the producer of the movie Blowing Smoke, has just done. He has produced the film his way – deeply un-PC screenplay about cigars, men and women using cutting-edge digital technology – and now he is releasing the movie via the Blowing Smoke blog. 
And he really does not like the studios, but he seems to like bloggers:
The point is that he can go all the way to his audience, by-passing the intermediaries. Sure, the path is not clear, the journey may be either uneventful or too bumpy, but Kamal is aware of the experimental nature of what he has done. He is enjoying the comments from those who understand and appreciate what he is trying to do. As he said after the ‘launch’:
It has taken a while to get to this point both in terms of understanding and then realising the idea. I feel privileged to have been part of that process and enjoy working with Kamal whose open mind has been instrumental in this adventure. In return, he can be blamed for my blossoming addiction to cigars, the quality of which would make any cigar afficionado weep with joy. Whilst discussing the final details of the Blowing Smoke ‘release operation’, I savoured a particularly good Hoyo de Monterrey. Who says the days of plotting in smoke-filled rooms are over… I shall leave you with an exhortation: Boxed BS available now! Get your own! Oh and, BS download is Coming Out Real Soon Now! cross-posted from Media Influencer August 5th, 2005 | 26 comments - (Comments are closed)
The government’s plans to impose ID cards on British people get wobblier by the day and at last they seem to realise that there is no point in pretending otherwise. Nevertheless, it is important for everyone to remember who cast their votes in Parliament and thereby allowed us to get this close to a civil liberties calamity in the first place. We are by no means in the clear yet but it does seem that things are going our way to some extent and so it is important to kick and stamp on this beast hard whilst it is down. If we are to avoid this issue coming back to haunt us again and again, we need to make sure that forgiveness is left for the afterlife and use the voting record to MPs who voted in favour at any time to question their fundamental morality and trustworthiness, regardless of party. It is essential not just now but in the foreseeable future to make this issue as fraught and unpleasant as possible for all concerned. If we can make ‘the ID cards issue’ synonymous with political calamity, methinks politicos might just avoid the issue in favour of lower hanging fruit. August 5th, 2005 | 23 comments - (Comments are closed)
The bureaucratic mind at work, from the WSJ Political Diary:
August 5th, 2005 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||