A number of these things have been developed for various purposes. You can keep following links, but I just focused on a couple.

From Glasgow University:

RoboSalmon, an underwater robot meant to spy on the real fish, is being developed at Glasgow University.
The robot has a built-in camera to broadcast images of real fish back to the operators of the device. Zoologists will use RoboSalmon to monitor various fish species in their natural habitat.

A key feature of RoboSalmon is its propulsion system. Since the robot will use its fins and tail for movement, it will be able to move through the water in a way that is more natural for aquatic creatures. Propellers make an unnatural noise that disturbs fish; RoboSalmon's biomimetic characteristics should help it blend in.

And here, a neat video of the Essex Robotic carp in action.

The above video shows just how realistic the motion is. The robots are covered in light-reflective scales, as well as tiny sensors that provide information about the distance from obstacles.

No longer will we be shut out from the doings of the watery denizens.
We will infiltrate them- malevolent mackerels, sinister smelts, baneful barracudas- with loyal moles that have no choice but to report directly to us all that they see and hear.

PS: Just a head's up: keep this new development in mind the next time you think of going skinny-dipping.

PPSS: Can hardly wait for these things to start showing up in fishermen's nets, in foreign waters far from where they're supposed to be.

Posted by: LauraW. at 03:51 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Good piece on the herd mentality of the media, and the shared belief system necessary to advance in that millieu.

I think strays into wrong territory when he analogizes this to Republican bloggers' and partisans' cheerleading and optimism for the '06 elections. For one thing, we have no pretense of objectivity. For another thing, it really wasn't the case that "everyone knew" Republicans would hold the Congress, or "everyone knew" the polls were wrong. It was more like "we all hope" both of those were true, and no one wants to be psyching one's team down as game day approaches.

Posted by: Ace at 02:00 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

This is simply too common now to be anything but by design. First Barney Frank carped that he shouldn't be asked about the liberal party's liberal agenda, now John-John Murtha gets testy when asked about his failed bid to become Majority Leader.

If they think this is going to play, it's not. It may please their ultraliberal base -- which actually believes CNN is part of the "conservative media" -- but to most Americans it comes off as arrogant and prickly in their refusal to answer questions about themselves and their agenda.

This is what they learned from six years of Republican "fascism"? To adopt the posture of a scornful royalty which shall not deign to be questioned by their lessers?

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

This has long been one of the most bizarre articles of faith among liberals -- that a purely defensive system to stop the incineration of entire cities is morally wrong.

Don't buy the various claims they make about the system not working or being too expensive or, strangest of all, it being "destabilizing." Wouldn't want to "destabilize" that carefully-calibrated Balance of Terror in our favor or anything. As can "can't work," it can, and elements of the system work even now. As for too expensive -- well, how much is Los Angeles worth, exactly? Seems to me it's pretty pricey, and would be difficult to replace.

The liberals are committed to spending trillions to stave off a farfetched threat of losing ten meters of shoreline, but won't spend a penny to defend against an increasingly-likely attack against the US via missile.

We can simply use a smile as our nuclear umbrella. This Ahmadinejad -- he's a reasonable fellow. He can be negotiated with. Just like The Humungous in Road Warrior.

Read all about it.

Posted by: Ace at 07:06 PM | Comments (110)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

The bulk of these rules are about terrorism, and the use of terrorist-provided money and equipment.

Rule 19, though, is something different:

19) Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair onto the battlefield or into their private quarters.

Sura 18, Verse 10: If there's grass on the infield, play ball. If it's just smooth clay, it is an abomination.

Rule 18 says you're not allowed to smoke.

How the hell can you give up smoking if you're not allowed to use prepubescent boys as a substitute? That's just crazy.

Posted by: Ace at 06:59 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

Kind of funny, but my one problem with young/college Republicans is that they often adopt the silly style of political provocation so central to the left.

Still, you may find it amusing:

The Young Conservatives of Texas - University of Texas Chapter announced today that they will be displaying an “ACLU Nativity Scene” on the West Mall of the University of Texas campus on Monday and Tuesday, December 4th and 5th. The group’s intent is to raise awareness on the extremity of the ACLU, and bring to light its secular-progressive efforts to remove Christmas from the public sphere. The display, the first of its kind in the nation, will feature characters that are quite a bit different than the standard crèche.

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”

The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

At least they're not using those papier-mache puppetheads the left is so fond of.

Posted by: Ace at 06:04 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

"Realism" requires, well, a realistic appraisal of the situation. Those, such as John Kerry and James Baker who press for "diplomacy" with Iran have to answer some questions.

If you want someone to do something they are not inclined to do, you either have to offer them an inducement for doing so, or a credible threat if they do not act as you wish. Since most proposing "diplomacy" are decidedly not in the "threat" camp -- they wish to avoid any futher wars at all costs (including the invetibably more deadly future wars), it's time for the "realists" to explain what inducements/concessions/appeasements to Iran they will offer up for its "help" in stablizing Iran.

It's not exactly a mystery what Iran wants. So which of the following are Baker and Kerry willing to offer? Note that Iran will almost certainly demand several, if not all, of the following:

1) Massive foreign aid. This is the least offensive appeasement, and it still offends mightily. Because we know that Iran is using a large amount of the money it has to fund terrorism; common Iranians even complain about this. Foreign aid then will go directly into funding terrorism. And don't claim that we will "ensure the aid goes to the people." Money is fungible. If American money goes "to the people," that immediately frees up more Iranian money to go to the terrorists. Aid "to the people" reduces the amount of money Iran has to spend internally and allows them to spend more externally. Or, at best, it allows them to spend the same amount to support terrorism while paying no domestic political price for such a diversion of funds, as Uncle Sam will now be propping up Ahmadinejad's corrupt terror regime and making him more popular with his people. You can't have bread and circuses, they say, but you actually can, as long as an external deep pockets benefactor is paying you money so that you can have both.

2) Freedom to pursue the nuclear bomb without even the minor harrassment of the IAEA or UN, and of course a promise to not act militarily -- or even economically or dipomatically -- against Iran for doing so. Is John Kerry willing to concede this?

3) A free hand to reconquer Lebanon.

4) A free hand to conduct terrorism against Israel, and, in fact, a free hand to fulfill Ahmadinejad's often-stated "campaign promise" of "wiping Israel clean from the face of the earth."

5) The evacuation of American troops from Iraq, to be replaced by Iranian "peace keepers," who will of course effectively take over Iran. (See Lebanon; also see the Iranian proxy-army Hezbollah.)

Several, if not all, of the above have to be offered to Iran in order for it to "bring stability" to Iraq, by taking it over. But what is "stability" worth? If Iran does "stabilize" Iraq as a new terrorist haven, using a good part of its oil money for further terrorism, have we gained from the "stabilization" of Iraq? Or have we actually lost?

Germany was "destabilized" by American, British, and Russian military action in the forties. We could have had "stability" there, too -- simply giving Hitler all he wanted would have avoided much of the war. (At least the war with the West-- Russia he wanted to destroy.)

"Stability" is not a good outcome when the "stability" envisioned is the creation of a stable, prosperous, money-producing state which is your enemy and will work to destroy you.

If that's the "stability" Kerry and Baker seek -- and Bush himself seems open to -- I for one would rather have a very unstable Iraq, too weak to act against us.

I really wish some MSM manniquin would quiz Kerry and Baker at precisely how many of the above inducements they're willing to offer Iran in exchange for giving Iraq to Iran as a client-state satrapy. But of course they won't.

And note that what we get in return from Iran is simply not anything that benefits us -- what we get out of Iran's "help" in stabilizing Iraq is in fact just the right to give a further inducement to Iran: a brand new country it can control and take money from to advance terrorism against Israel, the West, and America.

So "negotions" can only result in one outcome: Iran will be greatly strengthened by US concessions, in exchange for which the US gets to greatly strengthen Iran by further concessions.

This is much like paying someone $100 for the right to pay him another $100. Sure, "negotiations" will be "succesful" in the sense that you will readily have agreement from your counterpart, as he will gladly agree to allow you to pay him $100 for the right to give him another $100.

But how, exactly, does that improve your own situation? Seems to me you're now down by two bills with nothing to show for it.

And such is the tough, strong plan of the "realists."

Posted by: Ace at 05:49 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 845 words, total size 5 kb.

And they're not even in office yet. Instituting all of the 9/11 commission's suggested reforms was one of the bullet points in Pelosi's "Six for '06" party promises, and I guess they now think five is a nice, round number that's easier to work with.

It's the one about reforming Congressional oversight of war/intelligence functions.

The problem, as I understand it: Following through on the promise would mean taking power away from those who have salivated so long for it.

Power trumps everything. Especially something so meaningless as a promise.

Posted by: Ace at 05:15 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

I hope this doesn't disqualify me as a heterosexual male, but the celebrity upskirts have become so common I think they just may have jumped the shark.

It's gone from "Wow! I can't believe it!" to "Oh, I guess that means she's got a record or movie coming out in three weeks."

Viral marketing. The operative word being "viral," in both definitions.

But now she's unleashing her inner wild child, running around with party girls Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, sporting unflattering hair extensions and flashing her apparently panty-less crotch to the paparazzi. (Be prepared to cringe if you dare to view the uncensored photos, splashed unceremoniously across the Web).

"She's a beautiful girl and now that she's single and she's having fun, I think she's just trying to express herself," said New York-based celebrity image consultant Amanda Sanders.

"Express herself." She wants the world to know she has intact genitals.

It's not officially weird until Rosie O'Donnell offers to shack up with you:

...

Rosie O'Donnell said Wednesday on "The View" that Spears should stop bonding with Hilton and move in with her, her partner Kelli and their kids so she could have a "stable family around her."

Exit question: If Spears did move in with Rosie, who would be the stupidest in the house? Spears, Rosie, or Spears' vagina?

If I can say something nice about Spears' vagina -- it seems to have more common sense than she does, and I imagine it's still wondering about the whole K-Fed thing itself.

Thanks to ALF.

Posted by: Ace at 05:09 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

It's a bit strange to see commercials with Mel Gibson explaining what the hell his movie is about for two reasons. One, it's just something that isn't done very much generally, two, you'd figure that, given Gibson's alcoholic tirade, they'd want to soft-sell his involvement with the project.

But having seen numerous trailers -- without Gibson's explanation -- in the theater, I had no idea what the movie was supposed to be about. I guess the studios felt similarly-- they were showing a lot of quick-cutting, dramatic images in the jungle, panthers and painted warriors, but nowhere in the trailer was there any indication of what the plot was. Unless the plot was actually nothing but running through the jungle and being eaten by panthers.

Enter Gibson, explaining, vaguely, it's a movie about one man's courage in trying to save his family. Presumably from panthers.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:42 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 1232 words, total size 8 kb.