View 454 February 19 - 25, 2007 (original) (raw)
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Subj: NRC Chairman hopes "not to be an impediment to the licensing of new reactors"
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2007/07-023.html
NRC: News Release - 2007-023 - NRC Chairman Addresses Growth Issue at Platts Nuclear Energy Conference
=He also said he hopes to reduce the time necessary to process new reactor applications. �We�re still looking at ways to reduce the review time required for early site permits and combined operating licenses,� he said, �with no compromise on safety. That is not an unrealistic goal if industry does its job at the beginning of the licensing process� with standardized designs and applications.=
Rod Montgomery==monty@sprintmail.com
We can sure hope he means it!
========
Virgil and others always did say that Troy founded Rome, and Etruria was from Asia Minor...
Track human movements by sequencing cow mitochondrial DNA?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11174-
on-the-origin-of-the-etruscan-civilisation.html
Excerpt:
The team found that almost 60% of the mitochondrial DNA in cows in the central Tuscan region of the country - where the Etruscan civilisation is thought to have arisen - was the same as that in cows from Anatolia and the Middle East. There was little or no genetic convergence between cows from the north and south of Italy and those from Turkey and the Middle East, the researchers say.
==========
A dialogue:
Subject: Florida judge
Your observations about the judge in Florida "presiding" over the Anna Nicole Smith matter are entirely correct - he is an idiot thrown into a situation where he can get on national, nay, INTERnational, TV and achieve some measure of fame. I heard one talk show host suggest that the judge wanted to be the "next Judge Judy," and it is entirely possible that he is correct. What is occurring is a travesty almost as bad as the OJ trial debacle.
As to child porn, the jurisprudential theory is that, while the pictures themselves may do no particular damage, the producing of them and the attendant victimization of children is quite damaging to both them and society as a whole. Having seen, in court, the nature of those producing child porn and having also seen the damage done to their victims, I would tend to agree with that theory.
Highest regards,
Professor Tim Pleasant, Esq. Albuquerque, NM
To which I replied
But cartoons? Or adult actors pretending to be children? Electronic images not involving any humans at all?
I understand the theory, but I am not sure it works very well. There seems to be no shortage of kiddy porn, none of it originating in the US. Allowing electronic images made in USA might actually cut down on the amount of stuff involving real children. Same for adult actors. I'm no fan or advocate of adult porn either, but it's not illegal unless they pretend to be children.
Not to defend it, but to attempt to explain and explore it a bit - one of the simultaneous advantages and disadvantages of the law, I've found, is that it tends to be rather slow moving. We still have a lot of judges (including federal ones) stuck in the typewriter and carbon paper age. They have no concept of digital imagery, and wouldn't know how to surf the Internet if they tried. (I hasten to say this not true of all of them, but it is certainly true of some, given lifetime tenure). Combine that with the various legislators' penchant for wishing to appear "tough on crime," particularly on sex crimes against children, and you get just the result you've observed.
One of the biggest advantages, perhaps the only one, of a slow-to-change, slow-to-react legal system is that it provides stability and predictability, at least in theory. However, that, in turn, depends on the actors within the system sticking with it.....which leads us back to the idiot judge in Florida who, like a number of his colleagues on the bench, figure that their role is to change things to match their own sense of enlightened (usually, but not always politically liberal) sensibilities rather than to act to preserve and maintain that stable, predictable system. It is NOT the job of the judiciary to give the populace what it wants, but this guy figures they want a show, and he's going to provide it. After a decade now working in the system, I'd have to say that kind of attitude in the judiciary scares me a lot more than a degree of foolish overkill in how it treats child porn. (Admittedly, perhaps I'm too close to it to be an objective observer).
And I wish I had a solution to all of this, but I don't. I just try to teach my law students how to NOT head down that particular path, but I strongly suspect it's a losing battle.
Tim
Alas, some of that foolish overkill regarding kiddie porn can result in 10 years in the pokey for someone who has never molested a child or indeed done anything but look at pictures. Or so I am told; certainly there are people jailed for whom it was never proven that they did anything else.
I confess that my sympathy for those who collect child pornography has some severe bounds, and given the limits on my time and attention I don't spend any efforts on their behalf, there being more worthy causes; but still it bothers me that having electronic images on a disk drive can send one to be raped in prison and probably to die of AIDS.
=========
Subject: The Power (and Peril) of Praising Your Kids -- New York Magazine
The Power (and Peril) of Praising Your Kids
Dear Jerry,
Apparently we have raised a generation of "Praise Junkies":
"...For a few decades, it's been noted that a large percentage of all gifted students (those who score in the top 10 percent on aptitude tests) severely underestimate their own abilities. Those afflicted with this lack of perceived competence adopt lower standards for success and expect less of themselves. They underrate the importance of effort, and they overrate how much help they need from a parent.
When parents praise their children's intelligence, they believe they are providing the solution to this problem. According to a survey conducted by Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents think it's important to tell their kids that they're smart. In and around the New York area, according to my own (admittedly nonscientific) poll, the number is more like 100 percent. Everyone does it, habitually. The constant praise is meant to be an angel on the shoulder, ensuring that children do not sell their talents short.
But a growing body of research�and a new study from the trenches of the New York public-school system�strongly suggests it might be the other way around. Giving kids the label of "smart" does not prevent them from underperforming. It might actually be causing it... "
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/
Cheers,
Rod Schaffter
-- "To try to reconcile, into a single view, a country that contains Houston, New Orleans, San Francisco, Nashville, Washington, Los Angeles, and New York City, before we even go for a walk in the country, is beyond the usual boundaries of human comprehension. We simplify by noting they have only one President." --David Warren
=========
Subject: Phasers, fire!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6380789.stm <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6380789.stm>
Steven
=========
>Subject: A rival for NASA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9TBgkJC3co
>Regards Norman
Alas, by 8:57AM Thursday morning, the video had been yanked with a note about a copyright complaint by the BBC,
-- Cecil Rose alabama@earthlink.net
Apex, NC
Ah, well.
===========
Pictures on your hard drive.
Dr Pournelle,
You mentioned the subject of being jailed for what the Feds may find on your hard drive. We have similar laws in the UK, and it has always worried me that you can go to jail for years because of images on your disk. Obviously we are talking about paedophiles here. People with a mental illness/abnormality which makes them the new witches. Now if a paedo acts out and commits an offence against a child I have no problem with locking them up until they are no longer a danger to the public. But to assume that everyone who looks at the pictures is as dangerous as an active criminal is a long stretch. If I look at movies about bank robberies does that mean I should be locked up as a potential bank robber?
I can only assume that the courts will consider the possibility that somebody other than the computer owner downloaded the images or left them in cache before they lock the owner up. But even if the pictures were downloaded with the intention of looking at them, then it's a sad thing, but it harms no further person to look at them. The Feds would say that the harm is done when the picture is produced, and of course anybody involved in harming a child to make a photo for sale is guilty as hell. But the law does not distinguish those photos from any other made by simulation or indeed CGI or just plain art, where no direct harm takes place. And yet the witchhunt continues.
Adrian
========
Subject: Virtual Child Pornography
In your reply to Tim Pleasant, you wrote: "But cartoons? Or adult actors pretending to be children? Electronic images not involving any humans at all?" Don't fret. The S.Ct. (and the 9th Circuit) got this one right. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html) .
Pursuant to that decision, the Court held that provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that outlawed any visual depiction that appears to be of a minor involved in sexually explicit activity was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court's opinion reflects that laws prohibiting child pornography are valid not because child pornography is obscene (a notoriously difficult basis to prove), but rather because the state has a valid interest in protecting real children from the production of child pornography. Since real children are not involved in the creation of virtual child pornography, there is no valid state interest. Virtual child pornography could still be unlawful if it was obscene, but as I referenced above, it is a very difficult standard to prove (which doesn't mean an abusive prosecutor wouldn't press charges to ruin a possessor's life). I'm surprised that Prof. Tim Pleasant, Esq. failed to advise you of the Ashcroft opinion.
Rene Daley
Well that makes more sense than a lot of modern court decisions do. Thanks. Of course 9th Circuit gets overruled about 10 times more often than any other circuit, usually for pretty good reasons. So it's not settled...
Actually, the S.Ct. affirmed the 9th Cir. in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234. The district court originally upheld the constitutionality of the Child Pornography Prevention Act and the 9th Cir. reversed the district court. On appeal to the S.Ct., the S.Ct. upheld the 9th Cir.'s opinion.
Thanks.
=================w
Subject: Modeling Gone Awry-
Dr. Pournelle,
Subj: Modeling Gone Awry
The engineering office where I work is designing the heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for a 10-story building near Denver, CO. An energy consultant is modeling the building for annual energy use to achieve LEED certification for identifying it as having certain energy conserving features.
Over the last few months, every time the energy consultant runs a simulation on the building virtually none of the energy reduction features designed for the HVAC systems are showing any cost savings. Discussions ensue and we provide clarification how the systems will work to reduce energy consumption when compared to a baseline configuration. In fact, their first report on energy consumption basically implied that we should scrap every energy saving feature and design the lowest first-cost HVAC system. With each report, we inquired into how they constructed their model. Although refinement occurred, each discussion revealed a lack of understanding on how the HVAC systems interact with the environment inside and outside the building during occupied and unoccupied cycles throughout the year.
Heck, if an energy consultant can't figure out how to model a simple 10-story office building, it doesn't bode well for them understanding a planet.
Stan Fuhrhop
It is fascinating how badly people model systems where there is immediate feedback on the accuracy of the predictions, and how much confidence the same people have in models of systems where it will take years and years to validate the predictions. The further away the validation, the more confidence the "consensus" seems to have in the model. There is no "consensus" on a model that tells me the weather next year, or the average rainfall in Southern California over the next five years, or the amount of snowfall in the High Sierra (very important for energy production projections) for the next year or an average for the next decade; but there is a consensus about the temperature of the whole Earth after a century even though there is no actual consensus on just how to DEFINE the "temperature of the Earth."
The arrogance of modelers who now have computers that let them get numerical solutions to hideously complex models never ceases to amaze me.
When I was in Operations Research (which over the years decided that the fancier name Systems Analysis would get us more consulting jobs) we were always careful to build models with the least sensitivity to the variables (we chose regions where the curves were pretty flat) and to use equations we could actually solve (and in doing so see something of just how sensitive the outputs were to the assumptions). Now almost any model can be solved by brute force; but if the output depends heavily complex inputs then the model is no better than the input predictions which are themselves often shaky Ah, well. Consensus is important. And Peer Review certainly build consensus.
=========
Subject: A rival for NASA
Dear Dr Pournelle,
Try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTvCwVYFLww .
At the time of writing it was still working.
Actually quite a few viewable copies of this video have now appeared on YouTube. Some of them are quite long at 10 minutes but the launch and ultimately disastrous flight are worth watching.
Cheers,
Simon Woodworth.
=======
Hello Dr. Pournelle,
Subject: Pop-up ads send teacher to jail
The witch hunts continue and become ever more wacky. You cannot make this stuff up.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17134607/
Best regards,
Clyde Wisham
The world is well served by jailing that teacher. Anarcho Tyranny.