March 31, 2009
March 28, 2009
Escorted From The Party;
By Chang-Ran Kim
(Reuters)
- Japan deployed two ballistic missile destroyers to the Sea of Japan on Saturday to intercept any dangerous debris in the event that a controversial missile launch planned by North Korea goes awry.
Pyongyang has said it would launch a communications satellite between April 4-8 that regional powers believe will actually be a test of its long-range missile, the Taepodong-2, which is already believed to be on its launch pad at a North Korean missile base.
On Saturday morning, Japan deployed two Aegis-equipped destroyers with Standard Missile-3 interceptors to the Sea of Japan, which lies between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, a Defense Ministry official said.
A third Aegis-equipped defense ship left another base for the Pacific Ocean, where the missile is expected to land, the official said.
The United States, Japan's main security ally, meanwhile, is set to deploy two Aegis-equipped ships with missile defense capabilities from the South Korean port of Busan on the 30th, a U.S. military official said on Saturday.
The official declined to disclose their destination or mission.
NORTH KOREAN WARNING
North Korea has given international agencies notice that the rocket's planned trajectory should take it over Japan, dropping booster stages to its east and west. Any attempt to shoot the rocket itself down would be an act of war, it has said.
Japan's constitution does not allow it to intercept a missile if it is clearly heading elsewhere.
Regional powers Japan, South Korea and the United States have pledged to punish Pyongyang if it goes ahead with the launch, condemning the act as a violation of U.N. resolutions imposed on the hermetic state for earlier weapons tests.
In its only previous test flight in 2006, the Taepodong-2 either blew up or was deliberately destroyed after failing just after launch.
Japanese officials say the chances that debris will fall on its territory were slim and have called on the public not to panic.
On Friday Japan began deploying its ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptors, with units leaving Iruma air base northwest of Tokyo to be positioned closer to the political and financial centers of the capital.
Top nuclear envoys from Japan, South Korea and the United States were to meet in Washington on Friday in a sign of growing concern over the launch in the first big test for U.S. President Barack Obama in dealing with the prickly North.
Russia has said North Korea should abstain from testing the rocket, calling for dialogue with Pyongyang.
(Additional reporting by Cheon Jong-woo in SEOUL; Editing by David Fox)
(Reuters)
- Japan deployed two ballistic missile destroyers to the Sea of Japan on Saturday to intercept any dangerous debris in the event that a controversial missile launch planned by North Korea goes awry.
Pyongyang has said it would launch a communications satellite between April 4-8 that regional powers believe will actually be a test of its long-range missile, the Taepodong-2, which is already believed to be on its launch pad at a North Korean missile base.
On Saturday morning, Japan deployed two Aegis-equipped destroyers with Standard Missile-3 interceptors to the Sea of Japan, which lies between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, a Defense Ministry official said.
A third Aegis-equipped defense ship left another base for the Pacific Ocean, where the missile is expected to land, the official said.
The United States, Japan's main security ally, meanwhile, is set to deploy two Aegis-equipped ships with missile defense capabilities from the South Korean port of Busan on the 30th, a U.S. military official said on Saturday.
The official declined to disclose their destination or mission.
NORTH KOREAN WARNING
North Korea has given international agencies notice that the rocket's planned trajectory should take it over Japan, dropping booster stages to its east and west. Any attempt to shoot the rocket itself down would be an act of war, it has said.
Japan's constitution does not allow it to intercept a missile if it is clearly heading elsewhere.
Regional powers Japan, South Korea and the United States have pledged to punish Pyongyang if it goes ahead with the launch, condemning the act as a violation of U.N. resolutions imposed on the hermetic state for earlier weapons tests.
In its only previous test flight in 2006, the Taepodong-2 either blew up or was deliberately destroyed after failing just after launch.
Japanese officials say the chances that debris will fall on its territory were slim and have called on the public not to panic.
On Friday Japan began deploying its ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptors, with units leaving Iruma air base northwest of Tokyo to be positioned closer to the political and financial centers of the capital.
Top nuclear envoys from Japan, South Korea and the United States were to meet in Washington on Friday in a sign of growing concern over the launch in the first big test for U.S. President Barack Obama in dealing with the prickly North.
Russia has said North Korea should abstain from testing the rocket, calling for dialogue with Pyongyang.
(Additional reporting by Cheon Jong-woo in SEOUL; Editing by David Fox)
Ran Out Of Guinness, I Think My Head May Explode;
Jughead was replaced in the Yankee test by the so-called "Runt II" device (the TX-24 bomb, initially the "emergency capability" EC-24), a modified form of the "Runt" device (the TX-17/EC-17) tested in Castle Romeo. Externally identical, the principal difference between them was in the fuel for the fusion stage. While Runt used natural lithium (with 7.5% of the Lithium-6 isotope), Runt II used the same partially enriched lithium (approximately 40% Lithium-6) as the "Shrimp" device tested in Bravo.
It was detonated on May 5, 1954, at Bikini Atoll of the Marshall Islands, on a barge moored in the middle of the crater from the Castle Union test.
Although it had been predicted to produce a yield of 6 to 10 megatons, it actually produced a yield of 13.5 megatons, the second-largest ever yield in a U.S. fusion weapon test. Like the Ivy Mike, Bravo and Romeo tests, a large percentage of the yield was produced by fast fission of the natural uranium "tamper"; 7 megatons of the yield was from this source. The other 6.5 megatons were from fusion reactions; (this increase was due to the different fusion fuel)....
It was detonated on May 5, 1954, at Bikini Atoll of the Marshall Islands, on a barge moored in the middle of the crater from the Castle Union test.
Although it had been predicted to produce a yield of 6 to 10 megatons, it actually produced a yield of 13.5 megatons, the second-largest ever yield in a U.S. fusion weapon test. Like the Ivy Mike, Bravo and Romeo tests, a large percentage of the yield was produced by fast fission of the natural uranium "tamper"; 7 megatons of the yield was from this source. The other 6.5 megatons were from fusion reactions; (this increase was due to the different fusion fuel)....
March 27, 2009
The Myth Of The Cave
"So the sun is not to be identified with sight, but is responsible
for sight and is itself within the visible realm...As goodness
stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we
know, so in the visible realm the sun stands to sight and the
things we see."
for sight and is itself within the visible realm...As goodness
stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we
know, so in the visible realm the sun stands to sight and the
things we see."
(VI, 508b-c)
March 21, 2009
OPP:
APARTHEID: Crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." It lists such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence, and collective persecution.
"Israel is not an apartheid state — rather the opposite, it is easily the most democratic and politically egalitarian state in the Middle East, in which Arabs Israelis enjoy far more freedom, better social services, etc. than in all the Arab states surrounding it. Indeed, Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions. (The U.S. would prosecute and jail Congressmen calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Govt. or the demise of the U.S.) The best comparison would be the treatment of Japanese Americans by the US Govt ... and the British Govt. [incarceration] of German émigrés in Britain WWII ... Israel's Arabs by and large identify with Israel's enemies, the Palestinians. But Israel hasn't jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse (since 1966 [when Israel lifted its state of martial law]). – Benny Morris
Don't Get "Revved Up For Nothin'"
Redlining;
is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services such as banking, insurance, access to jobs, access to health care, or even supermarkets to residents in certain, often racially determined, areas. The term "redlining" was coined in the late 1960s by community activists in Chicago. It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sexual orientation) no matter the geography. During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. Through at least the 1990s this practice meant that banks would often lend to lower income whites but not to middle or upper income blacks....
is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services such as banking, insurance, access to jobs, access to health care, or even supermarkets to residents in certain, often racially determined, areas. The term "redlining" was coined in the late 1960s by community activists in Chicago. It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sexual orientation) no matter the geography. During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. Through at least the 1990s this practice meant that banks would often lend to lower income whites but not to middle or upper income blacks....
March 20, 2009
Never Trust A Skinny Millionaire...
Key risk indicators became highly volatile during September 2008, a factor leading the U.S. government to pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The “TED spread” is a measure of credit risk for inter-bank lending. It is the difference between: 1) the risk-free three-month U.S. treasury bill rate; and 2) the three-month London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which represents the rate at which banks typically lend to each other. A higher spread indicates banks perceive each other as riskier counterparties. The t-bill is considered "risk-free" because the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is behind it; theoretically, the government could just print money so that the principal is fully repaid at maturity. The TED spread reached record levels in late September 2008. The diagram indicates that the Treasury yield movement was a more significant driver than the changes in LIBOR. A three month t-bill yield so close to zero means that people are willing to forgo interest just to keep their money (principal) safe for three months – a very high level of risk aversion and indicative of tight lending conditions. Driving this change were investors shifting funds from money market funds (generally considered nearly risk free but paying a slightly higher rate of return than t-bills) and other investment types to t-bills.] These issues are consistent with the September 2008 aspects of the subprime mortgage crisis which prompted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 signed into law by the U.S. President on October 2, 2008 (George . W. Bush)
In addition, an increase in LIBOR means that financial instruments with variable interest terms are increasingly expensive. For example, car loans and credit card interest rates are often tied to LIBOR; some estimate as much as $150 trillion in loans and derivatives are tied to LIBOR. Furthermore, the basis swap between one-month LIBOR and three-month LIBOR increased from 30 basis points in the beginning of September to a high of over 100 basis points. Financial institutions with liability exposure to 1 month LIBOR but funding from 3 month LIBOR faced increased funding costs. "Durvexity" spiked as markets rapidly deteriorated. Overall, higher interest rates place additional downward pressure on consumption, increasing the risk of recession....
In addition, an increase in LIBOR means that financial instruments with variable interest terms are increasingly expensive. For example, car loans and credit card interest rates are often tied to LIBOR; some estimate as much as $150 trillion in loans and derivatives are tied to LIBOR. Furthermore, the basis swap between one-month LIBOR and three-month LIBOR increased from 30 basis points in the beginning of September to a high of over 100 basis points. Financial institutions with liability exposure to 1 month LIBOR but funding from 3 month LIBOR faced increased funding costs. "Durvexity" spiked as markets rapidly deteriorated. Overall, higher interest rates place additional downward pressure on consumption, increasing the risk of recession....
March 17, 2009
The House Where Nobody Lives
There's a house on my blockThat's abandoned and cold
Folks moved out of it a
Long time ago
And they took all their things
And they never came back
Looks like it's haunted
With the windows all cracked
And everyone call it
The house, the house where
Nobody lives
Once it held laughter
Once it held dreams
Did they throw it away
Did they know what it means
Did someone's heart break
Or did someone do somebody wrong?
Well the paint was all cracked
It was peeled off of the wood
Papers were stacked on the porch
Where I stood
And the weeds had grown up
Just as high as the door
There were birds in the chimney
And an old chest of drawers
Looks like no one will ever
Come back to the
House were nobody lives
Once it held laughter
Once it held dreams
Did they throw it away
Did they know what it means
Did someone's heart break
Or did someone do someone wrong?
So if you find someone
Someone to have, someone to hold
Don't trade it for silver
Don't trade it for gold
I have all of life's treasures
And they are fine and they are good
They remind me that houses
Are just made of wood
What makes a house grand
Ain't the roof or the doors
If there's love in a house
It's a palace for sure
Without love...It ain't nothin but a house
A house where nobody lives
Without love it ain't nothin
But a house, a house where
Nobody lives.
March 15, 2009
.jpg)
One Thing Conspiracy Theories Never Indulge, Is Reasonable Explanations...
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
March 8, 2009
Transcendence Doesn't Necessarily Mean Clarity...
[I start] to think about my own thoughts of the situation in which I find myself. I even think that I think of it, and divide myself into an infinite retrogressive sequence of "I's" who consider each other. I do not know at which "I" to stop as the actual, and in the moment I stop at one, there is indeed again an "I" which stops at it. I become confused and feel a dizzinessas if I were looking down into a bottomless abyss....
March 1, 2009
Apparently, It's My First Time Pushing The Envelope Or Somethin';
Party 'B' (the instigator) has accosted party 'A', over activities which it deams are a greivous violation of its personal charter, (however unfounded the allegations may be)leaving party 'A' a verbal and/or written warning to cease and desist from their current activities. Party 'A' however, does not feel that the activities they have engaged in, in any fashion have breached the ground rules laid out by party 'B' and is extremely offended by such action being taken. Party 'B' has served warning of their terms in a rather pejorative sense (hence their label; instigator) leaving party 'B' the hostile and aggressor of the two parties involved in this type of situation;
Party 'A' has 3 particular options available to them in this situation. The could immediately comply with the order to cease and desist, thus allowing for any guilt of the accusations made by party 'B' to be automatically assumed, and directed at party 'A' regardless of any defence made by party 'A', or the due course of any type of tribunal, or court system to either clear them of the false accusations made, or to prove without any reasonable doubt that party 'A' is in fact, guilty of any of the accusations levied against them.
The second option would involve Party 'A' launching a full on assault against Party 'B'. This could be done by either clearly labelling a defensive action at Party 'B', or by Party 'A' retaliating against Party 'B' in a similarly aggressive and hostile fashion, would reveal the weaknesses in the arguments and accusations being launched by both sides involved in the matter. The winner of the ensuing scuffle, would essentially be announced the victor of the quarrel, and the other party involved would immediately be forced to cease and desist, or continue operation, but with shame.
Thirdly, Party 'A' would be able to lay bait. Wait, and in the event of trapping Party 'B' with this guileful maneuver be assured that it is them which Party 'B' has lobbed their attack at, and launch a relenteless assault upon Party 'B' punishing them for complete and utter ignorance. The attack could involve a number of tactical maneuvers, such as the employment of certain fallacies, baited logic, loaded questions, and the backhanded false presumptions to lead Party 'B' into a trap from which it could not recover, allowing Party 'A' to continue to operate in the manner previously specified.
....The transposition of textbook knowledge does not indicate that in fact, the reader possesses any sort of understanding of the fundamental principles laid out by the original author, and the conclusion which the original author was able to draw from these principles. All it is able to show the third reader is; the original work of the author, and the fact that the secondary reader has been able to properly spell the words in exact order, just like the original author.....
Party 'A' has 3 particular options available to them in this situation. The could immediately comply with the order to cease and desist, thus allowing for any guilt of the accusations made by party 'B' to be automatically assumed, and directed at party 'A' regardless of any defence made by party 'A', or the due course of any type of tribunal, or court system to either clear them of the false accusations made, or to prove without any reasonable doubt that party 'A' is in fact, guilty of any of the accusations levied against them.
The second option would involve Party 'A' launching a full on assault against Party 'B'. This could be done by either clearly labelling a defensive action at Party 'B', or by Party 'A' retaliating against Party 'B' in a similarly aggressive and hostile fashion, would reveal the weaknesses in the arguments and accusations being launched by both sides involved in the matter. The winner of the ensuing scuffle, would essentially be announced the victor of the quarrel, and the other party involved would immediately be forced to cease and desist, or continue operation, but with shame.
Thirdly, Party 'A' would be able to lay bait. Wait, and in the event of trapping Party 'B' with this guileful maneuver be assured that it is them which Party 'B' has lobbed their attack at, and launch a relenteless assault upon Party 'B' punishing them for complete and utter ignorance. The attack could involve a number of tactical maneuvers, such as the employment of certain fallacies, baited logic, loaded questions, and the backhanded false presumptions to lead Party 'B' into a trap from which it could not recover, allowing Party 'A' to continue to operate in the manner previously specified.
....The transposition of textbook knowledge does not indicate that in fact, the reader possesses any sort of understanding of the fundamental principles laid out by the original author, and the conclusion which the original author was able to draw from these principles. All it is able to show the third reader is; the original work of the author, and the fact that the secondary reader has been able to properly spell the words in exact order, just like the original author.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)