Boeing Laser "Breakthrough" Produces First Solid-State 25kW Beam, Scalable Up To 100 kW in Next Several Years
— Ace

It's like lasing a stick of dynamite.

Or probably not. I have no idea. They say it can blow shit up good, though.

Boeing has just tested its new thin-disk laser, the most powerful solid-state laser ever made. It fires at over 25 kilowatts, with the scalability proven to go up to a 100 kilowatt laser in the coming years. A 100 kW laser would be the most powerful ever made, one that has a lot of challenges to overcome, including reducing the excess heat generated by such a powerful laser and maintaining the quality of the beam over distances. But even a 25 kW laser is extremely powerful. As the press release says, it "will damage, disable or destroy targets at the speed of light, with little to no collateral damage, supporting missions on the battlefield and in urban operations."

Nobody ever says this flat-out, but isn't the real value of such a weapon (at least as regards ground targets) its capability of conducting surgical assassination strikes?

Like (Scanners Head Explosion Content Warning)) this?

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

The Greening Earth: Earth's Vegetation Spikes During Past Two Decades
— Ace

If you love trees, drive SUV's!

[I]n the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did — on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”

Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again.

But a Big Chill is probably on the way.

Pete DuPont writes about the real costs of global warming, to wit, the fruitbat responses to this phantom menace -- which could cost six hundred thousand jobs per year, never mind the trillions of dollars lost.

And while energy prices skyrocket Democrats continue thwarting every attempt to increase energy production. Opening development of our massive stockpile of oil shale? Killed by Democrats.

If the media actually reported on any of this it could be bad for the Democrats. Fortunately, we know that won't happen. The news media aren't in the news business anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 536 words, total size 4 kb.

WaPo: Bush Didn't Lie
— Ace

Jay Rockefeller's report says so.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

The WaPo calls this a tragic and catastrophic failure of intelligence by the CIA. It should also say forthrightly that this entire line is a tragic and catastrophic failure of intelligence by the Democratic Party, who have had no coherent terrorism policy since 9/11 except to parrot MoveOn.org's stupidest sloganeering.

And that evidence on Saddam's ties to terrorism? Still valid. It's not wrong, it's just terribly inconvenient for the liberal do-nothing line on terrorism, so they pretend it's wrong.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 509 words, total size 4 kb.

Judge Forbids Use of the Word "Rape" in a Rape Trial
— Gabriel Malor

Bumped because there's not much else going on and this has been niggling at the back of my grey matter all day.

This story is raising eyebrows on the right and the left side of the blogosphere. A Nebraska district court judge prohibited the victim from describing what happened to her as rape, saying that it would be too prejudicial to the defendant. Also prohibited: "sexual assault", calling herself "a victim," or calling the defendant "the assailant."

BowenÂ’s case gained national notoriety and drew the attention of free-speech proponents after she filed a lawsuit challenging the judgeÂ’s actions as a First Amendment violation. A federal appeals court dismissed the suit, but BowenÂ’s attorney plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although he dismissed her suit, a federal judge said he doubted a jury would be swayed by a woman using the word “rape” instead of some “tortured equivalent.”

“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was raped when she testifies in a trial about rape,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf.

I haven't read the district court case, but I expect that it was dismissed because issues of undue prejudice are committed to the trial judge's discretion. Which means that if you get some judge who thinks that the presumption of innocence--a standard of proof--supersedes the adversarial system, you'll be stuck describing your rape as "when the defendant had sexual intercourse with me."

Judges matter.

UPDATE: A commenter, Centerfire, over at Hot Air explained why he thinks both the trial judge and the federal district judge got this wrong:

ItÂ’s a Rule 403-alike problem that the Nebraska judge got comically wrong.

Otherwise-relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to a party. That determination is ordinarily committed to the discretion of trial judges, but that discretion isnÂ’t unlimited or unreviewable. The rule favors admission of evidence: the issue isnÂ’t prejudice (since every piece of evidence is by its nature prejudicial) but rather unfair prejudice, and whether the risk of such substantially outweighs the extent to which the evidence sheds light on a factual matter. In a criminal context, defendants canÂ’t hide behind Rule 403 to prevent admission of evidence of the outrageousness of their conduct; the rule only serves to exclude lurid, unnecessary, waving-the-bloody-shirt displays by a prosecutor.

The problem is appellate courts that uncritically pass on this crap rather than making heads roll at the trial court level. This is classic, classic abuse of discretion by the trial judge, and the appellate court had an absolute obligation to slap him down.

I agree and would emphasize the difference between the victim of a crime and an expert testifying in the case. When the victim is testifying, there's little chance that the jury will confuse her use of the term "rape" or "victim" or "assailant" to mean that the ultimate question in the case has already been determined. They know that their purpose is to decide that very question. More than that, the defense is free to cross-examine the victim and make that point.

On the other hand, when an expert witness is testifying, it's much more likely that the jury would be confused and the defendant unduly prejudiced if the expert were allowed to express with certainty his conclusion as to the ultimate legal resolution of the case.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:39 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 599 words, total size 4 kb.

Dear Mr. President,
— Slublog

This afternoon, I put $35 worth of gas into my car and at $4 a gallon, that wasn't enough to fill it up. If I owned an SUV, that might be understandable, but I own a Saturn. A small one.

Now, as a conservative, I don't normally look to government to solve market-based problems. This case is different. Government may not be the solution, but it sure as heck is contributing to the problem. All I want it to do in this case is get out of the way. Our ability to increase the supply of oil has been limited by politicians eager to please special interest groups at a time we can't afford the luxury of such pandering. The Democrats have opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling off the coasts and drilling in the west. So my question is this - why are you being such a mealy-mouthed wimp about it?

I know that increasing domestic production won't lead to an immediate drop in oil prices, but it could serve to calm the speculation markets since they would have to factor an increase in supply into their predictions. Given how much people are paying for oil of all types, this issue is political gold, so why on earth aren't you and the GOP taking the offensive?

Is it too much to ask that you point out the fallacy of the Democratic argument? A Democratic president vetoed a bill that would have allowed ANWR drilling and at the time, Democrats said the potential domestic supply increase was irrelevant since the benefits wouldn't be realized for ten years. That was ten years ago. Would it really be that difficult for you to point out that had the Democrats done something then, things might be different now?

You're a lame duck president with nothing to lose and an economy being driven into the toilet by high energy costs. Are you so invested in the stupid 'new tone' nonsense that you're unwilling to point out the fact that the actions of Democrats in Congress have contributed and are currently contributing to the current oil price crisis? This is an issue of supply and demand - we have little control over the costs because we've all but abandoned a role in increasing supply.

Mr. President, now is the time to start hammering away at the Democrats and show how their fealty to special interest groups has helped lead us to unprecedented oil prices. It's clear the increasingly worthless-to-conservatives GOP nominee for 2008 isn't going to be of much help in this regard, so any effort on your part would be appreciated.

Such an effort may not only help control the spiraling costs of oil, but it would rehabilitate the image of your White House with dispirited conservatives. Frankly, we're tired of watching your administration let the Democrats control the public agenda and distort the truth while you sit idly by pretending your silence is somehow bringing civility to the political process. In short, stop being such a wimp and start going after the party that has put their desire for power above their love of country.

These oil prices are cutting deeply into the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans, and your administration is letting the Democrats block increased production instead of using the bully pulpit to push for more domestic drilling. It's time to stop being meek, stop allowing the Democrats to block progress and start throwing punches on behalf of the American people.

If you want to be known as the president who helped elect a socialist, keep doing nothing. If not, then let's see some fire. This issue is a political gift. Time to open it.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:12 AM | Comments (145)
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

Anniversary of 'Pingpong Diplomacy'
— LauraW

You really never know what kind of events will move the world.

This must have seemed very surreal and odd at the time.

It was an unlikely diplomatic tool amid the escalating rhetoric of the Cold War: a few paddles, a few pingpong balls and nine giddy U.S. table tennis players in a country Americans hadn't seen for decades.

Yet the week of table tennis exhibition games in China in April 1971 helped open China to the world, changed public opinion and paved the way for a groundbreaking visit from President Richard Nixon, who is credited today with restoring diplomatic ties between the nations.

More than three decades later, China and the U.S. will pay homage this week to the now-famous "pingpong diplomacy" with a three-day event at the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace that culminates in a rematch between several of the original - and aging - athletes.

"Athletes." OK.

The article has lots of interesting quotes and details from that time, which some of you might remember. I don't. In April of '71 I was pooping in a diaper and I don't remember a thing from that time.

I was 26 years old.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:41 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

No Fast Zombies at the Apocalypse [dri]
— Open Blog

The age old question of whether the undead would have the requisite muscle and tendon integrity to exhibit fast locomotion has been answered. In the early days of the zombie movie genre, zombies were slow due to the realities of rigor mortis, it was a given. Later films depicted them as possessing enhanced speed, super speed if you will. A level of speed that few outside of Olympic class athletes could ever hope to out outrun.

That development changed the zombie equation from a simple game of ammo supply, to one of ammo supply and stamina. Such a metric was self defeating by its very nature. One could not possibly hope to lug around enough heavy shotgun shells and run fast enough to escape the clutches of the fast undead. One had to choose between carrying plenty of bandoleers of 00 12 gage or run away empty handed but not both. In either scenario, a grisly death was likely to follow.
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:38 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

Game 2: Papists vs. Rapists Thread
— Jack M.

Just kidding, Kobe. Everyone knows you probably aren't a papist.

You know who used to be a Laker Girl? Paula Abdul. You don't want to be like Paula Abdul, do you?

BEAT L.A.! BEAT L.A! BEAT L.A.!

Posted by: Jack M. at 04:52 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me? (genghis)
— Open Blog

”Packing in Public: Owners not gun-shy”

A delightful Sunday morning story from the L.A. Times via that Seattle Times link. The set-up:

”PROVO, Utah — For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.
In hot weather, the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against his skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made him feel like a criminal.”

And also sexy/dirty. But letÂ’s continue:

”One evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.
In most states, there's no law against that.
Jensen, 28, decided to give it a try. A few days later, his gun was visible, dangling from a black holster strapped around his hip as he walked into a Costco. His heart raced as he ordered a Polish dog at the counter. No one called police. No one stopped him.”

Heavens to Betsy! I would imagine not. I shall quote no further except to say, read the whole thing. It’s about time we were able to come out of the closet, with our pieces in the open. Savvy AoSHQ readers will also pick up on the throwaway disclaimer line “…we’re here, we’re armed, get used to it.” Sassy!
One little item in the story was kindaÂ’ disturbing, though:

”He (Jensen) wore the gun to a Ron Paul rally.”

Now having second thoughts about all of this.
Eh, weÂ’ll take the good, the bad and the uglyÂ…itÂ’s all good in the end.

”Could give you a blow job that would knock your head clean off, punk”

Posted by: Open Blog at 10:54 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll See your "Lightworker" and Raise you a "Whitelighter".
— Jack M.

Or half-whitelighter or whatever the hell Rose McGowan is on Charmed. You think I regularly watch that crappy show?

Hell no! I'm too busy writing epic poems about Buffy the Vampire Slayer to have any time for that.

But when all this "lightworker/Obama" stuff started coming out, I was reminded not of DPUD's video games, but of the syndicated TNT series about 2 sexy, sexy witches and Holly Marie Combs.

From Left to Right: Combs, Sexy Witch #1, Sexy Witch #2,

Now, if you've never watched "Charmed", (and, really, who could blame ya?) it's basically about 3 sisters (the aforementioned sexy witches played by Alyssa Milano and Rose McGowan and, umm, Combs) who live in San Francisco and who combine their powers to protect the world from demons. And evil. Or maybe just evil demons. I dunno. I usually watch it on mute.

Anyway, McGowan's witch is a "whitelighter" (actually, I think she's only a half-whitelighter. The other half? Irish.) What is a whitelighter you ask?

Well it's basically an angelic figure with the power to heal. And to "orb" (teleport) herself and objects around. From wiki:

Whitelighters are the messengers between the Elders and witches. Leo helps the Charmed Ones by asking the Elders for help whenever they need information not provided by the Book of Shadows.
Healing is another special ability granted to Whitelighters, and is used when their charges have been injured. As long as there is the faintest breath of life left in a person, they can be healed from any injury, whether the injury is magical in origin or not, though they cannot heal self-inflicted damage. A Whitelighter's healing abilitiy is triggered by the emotion of love.

Why is this relevant?

Well, because in the world of Charmed, there are also, you guessed it "Darklighters".

And what do Darklighters do?

Pretty much the opposite of Whitelighters. From wiki:

Powers

Darklighters can teleport from place to place by orbing, as Whitelighters can, but their orb effects are black in color.[1] Their ability is called black orbing.[4] They also come equipped with crossbows, which they can summon into their hands at any time.[5] The Darklighter crossbow arrows are coated with a special type of poison that is especially lethal to Whitelighters.[1] Some Darklighters also possess the touch of death, a power triggered by hate and focused through their hands that allows the user to burn someone to death - in contrast to a Whitelighter's ability to heal others.[1] Similar to Whitelighters, Darklighters also possess the ability to sense another magical being's presence through a magical form of telepathy.[1] Hence they can locate a Whitelighter anywhere on the globe by merely concentrating.
[edit]

Goals

The Primary goal of all Darklighters is to kill Whitelighters in order to make witches more vulnerable to an evil attack. In addition, Darklighters often work as hired guns or mercenaries to higher level Demons and Powers. They generally work with Warlocks or demons to accomplish their goals.

Hmmm...Lightworkers and Whitelighters seem to overlap a little. Same with the whole Darkworker-Darklighter thing.

And that whole "communicating with the Elders" bit? Sounds pretty Obamessianic to me! Why if I were Morford, I'd have 1,500 words ready for next week about the "ancient wisdom" the Obamessiah has to share with us mortals.

Anyway, after reading DPUD's post that Gabe linked, I wondered, "how long was Charmed on"? The answer:1998-2005.

In other words, pretty much the same timeframe in which DPUD's cited games were released.

Which means what?

That Morford's article relies not only on a philosophy that was probably lifted from XBOX video games, but also on the narrative of a TV show that originally ran on the WB.

The WB, people. What's next? Will Morford write about how Smallville was really a rural suburb of Chicago, and Obama's only weakness is bald guys with environmentally invasive pollutants?

Probably.

In any event, I just thought I'd throw this out there for y'all to consider. Mainly because I wanted to post the pic of the two sexy, sexy witches. But also because if I'm ever going to be brought on board a "new-age" philosophical bandwagon, I'm gonna hold out hope that it's at least based on a wholesome show that used to run on FOX.

Like "Married with Children", or something. But that's just me.

Posted by: Jack M. at 10:18 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 735 words, total size 5 kb.