I labour over this history to place in context the astounding, even outré, comments offered by Canada’s First Separatist, Gilles Duceppe, on hearing of the proposed arrangement — which, I hasten to mention, is merely a $4.2-billion loan guarantee from Ottawa, not some massive outright subsidy. Mr. Duceppe, with a logic that can only belong to a man who gets paid to be a separatist by the government he’s trying to extinguish, called the deal “a direct attack on Quebec.”
What really bothers Mr. Duceppe and other separatists is that they want to retain Quebec’s monopoly on southbound power sales to the United States — something the Lower Churchill project, including its 1,100 km of underwater transmission cables, would threaten. “By financing the Newfoundland project, Stephen Harper has given Quebec a slap right in the face,” the BQ leader declared.
It’s one of the continuing risibilities of the Canadian federation that we cosset and pamper and pay for the separatist faction in the House of Commons, and go along with the pretense that they’re parliamentarians like any other. They are not. They displace the natural balance of the federation. They have a vested interested in seeing the parliament they attend not working. And they leap to any perceived or manufactured imperfection in our system as evidence of dark perfidy or contempt for Quebec. They warp the system. Nowhere do these observations meet with greater validation than these ludicrous comments by Duceppe on the proposed assistance to the Lower Churchill.
Rex Murphy, “Newfoundland’s three-gigawatt insult to Gilles Duceppe”, National Post, 2011-04-02
April 2, 2011
QotD: The nature of Harper’s “slap in the face” to Quebec
The continued risk of antibiotic resistance
The Economist has a good piece on the problems with mis-use of antibiotics:
Convenience and laziness top the list of causes of antibiotic resistance. That is because those who misuse these drugs mostly do not pay the cost. Antibiotics work against bacteria, not viruses, yet patients who press their doctors to prescribe them for viral infections such as colds or influenza are seldom harmed by their self-indulgence. Nor are the doctors who write useless prescriptions in order to rid their surgeries of such hypochondriacs. The hypochondriacs can, though, act as breeding grounds for resistant bacteria that may infect others. Even when the drug has been correctly prescribed, those who fail to finish the course are similarly guilty of promoting resistance. In some parts of the world, even prescription is unnecessary. Many antibiotics are bought over the counter, with neither diagnosis nor proper recommendations for use, multiplying still further the number of human reaction vessels from which resistance can emerge.
Nor is the problem confined to people. Analysing official figures, Louise Slaughter, an American congresswoman who is also a microbiologist, calculates that four-fifths of the antibiotics used in America are given to livestock, often to get perfectly healthy animals to grow faster. That is convenient, because it produces cheaper meat, but it creates yet more opportunities for bugs to evolve resistance.
All this matters because antibiotic resistance has both medical and financial costs. It causes longer and more serious illnesses, lengthening people’s stays in hospital and complicating their treatment. Sometimes people die unnecessarily. In one study, which sampled almost 1,400 patients at Cook County hospital in Chicago, researchers found resistant strains of bacteria infecting 188 people, 12 of whom died because they could not be treated adequately. At the moment, resistant bacteria threaten mostly children, the old, cancer patients and the chronically ill (especially those infected with HIV). However, there could be worse to come. Nearly 450,000 new cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis are recorded each year; one-third of these people die from the disease. More than a quarter of new cases of TB identified recently in parts of Russia were of this troublesome kind.
The high cost of modern combat aircraft
Many claims have been made about the actual cost to Canada for the small tranche of F-35 aircraft the Conservative government has agreed to buy. The opposition claimed that there were potentially huge savings from having a competition instead of ordering F-35’s. This may or may not be true, especially as the Department of National Defence still hasn’t made a clear statement about what role the new aircraft will be expected to fill (that is, we’re told the F-35 is the answer, but the question still hasn’t been specified).
Back when we bought the F-18, for example, one of the stated criteria was that the plane we bought had to have two engines, due to the potential risk of engine failure in the far north (where airfields are very few and very far apart). This ruled out the F-16, a single-engine plane. This time around, we’re buying a single-engine plane, but the reasons have not been spelled out. It may well be that the F-35 really is everything we need, but it does feel like we’re buying it because we were part of the original “team” during the early design phases.
Combat aircraft are not cheap, and the currently available crop show that well:
Despite the high expense all the electronic gear, the F-18G is not the most expensive combat aircraft out there. The F-22 costs $355 million each. The low budget F-18E costs $94 million each, while the F-18G goes for $105 million. The F-35 costs over $130 million (and growing). Even unmanned aircraft are pricy, with the Global Hawk costing $182 million each (with high end sensors). Older fighters, like the F-16, cost $60 million, and an F-15E goes for about $100 million. The price of the export EA-18G hasn’t been set yet, but it will probably be under $100 million.
These prices constantly fluctuate because of the need to incorporate a share of the development cost for each aircraft built. While most development expense occurs before mass production begins, there is sometimes considerable additional development expense, or major refurbishment, later in the lifetime of an aircraft. Many modern warplanes cost more than most warships, and have the same high maintenance (periodic refurbishment and development of new components) expenses.
Update: There’s another Strategy Page article of interest, this one talking about the decline of Canadian air power:
When the Canadian government decided to send some warplanes to assist in establishing the no-fly zone over Libya, they found out that sending six of their CF-18 fighters would amount to 20 percent of flyable Canadian fighters. That was a bit shocking to most Canadians. But not to those who run the Canadian Air Force, as they know quite well that the CF-18 is on the way out. For example, late last year, Canada awarded $700 million in contracts to two commercial firms (Harris and L3) to provide maintenance for its F-18 fleet of jet fighters over the next nine years. This type of contract is increasingly popular, as they provide a cheaper way to provide all the more complex maintenance, other than what the ground crews do on a daily basis. This involves major overhauls, management of spare parts and upgrades of equipment. This includes the airframe, engines and electronics. Canada expects to retire its remaining 79 CF-18s by 2020, and replace them with 65 F-35s. Meanwhile, only about 30 CF-18s are flyable, because so many aircraft are undergoing upgrades and extended maintenance.
[. . .] Canada plans to replace its CF-18s with the new 65 F-35s. The trend towards fewer, but more capable and expensive aircraft is a common one. Half a century ago, Canada had a fleet of nearly 600 fighters, including license built U.S. F-86s, and what would eventually amount to over 600 CF-100 fighters, the only Canadian designed fighter to enter mass production. The CF-100s were gradually retired over the next three decades. The last ones left service as the CF-18 entered service. But in between, Canada built, under license, several other U.S. fighter designs. Canada had become a major aircraft manufacturer during World War II (over 16,000 aircraft produced), and that provided the foundation for an aircraft industry that remains a major supplier of commercial aircraft to this day.
Why the F-22 was not deployed to Libya
I thought the answer to that question was simple: the F-22 is a pure fighter, and there’s no crying need for pure fighters to enforce the no-fly zone that can’t be met with older aircraft. Apparently, it’s a bit more complicated:
Conspicuously absent in the skies over Libya is the new American F-22. Despite modifying the F-22 to operate as a fighter-bomber, the F-22 was uniquely unsuited to operate as part of the international force assigned to stop Libya from attacking its own people. That job requires aircraft that can carry lots of smart bombs. Defeating the Libyan Air Force was not a major chore, and was easily handled by less capable (and cheaper to operate) air superiority fighters. Another problem was communications. The F-22 is not equipped to operate as part of an international aerial armada. The F-22 is a stealthy lone-wolf. Most of the time, the F-22 does not use its radio. To communicate with other F-22s, a special, short-range system is used. The F-22 does not have the full suite of communications equipment most NATO warplanes carry.
[. . .]
The 36 ton F-22 has internal bomb bays, like the F-117, to enhance stealthiness. Thus it can carry two half ton smart bombs, or eight 250 pound SDBs (ground penetrating Small Diameter Bombs) internally, in addition to a pair of air-to-air missiles. However, the F-22 is not yet modified to carry the SDB. The internal bays were originally designed to carry six air-to-air missiles, not bombs. Using the external hard points, which makes the aircraft more visible on radar, an F-22 can carry about four tons of bombs and missiles.
The F-22 has the most advanced radar and electronic warfare gear of any jet fighter. When you include the cost of research and development, each F-22 ends up costing nearly $400 million. But for pilots in certain types of combat, it’s money well spent. But not for what was needed over Libya, where most non-stealthy fighters can carry four or more tons of bombs and missiles.
Cultural bias and bad reporting
Jon sent me this link, which discusses the media coverage of the Fukushima workers:
We hear of Fukushima workers “fleeing” the plant, when what happened is they left for a few hours.
We hear about the appearance of tiny amounts of radioactive iodine in Tokyo tap water — but nothing the next day, when it returns to safe levels.
We hear a thousand commentators mention one measurement that was ten million times normal — but nothing when that turns out to have been a measurement error, made by someone who had little sleep and the weight of the world on his shoulders.
We hear people spinning tales of “worst case scenarios” ten thousand times worse than anything that could plausibly happen — and almost nothing about the fact that the Fukushima reactors endured an earthquake 32 times as forceful as they had been designed for, followed by a tsunami twice as high, and still largely survived.
We hear about “plutonium in the soil” — but not that it’s an amount so tiny that pound for pound, bananas in the grocery store are five thousand times more radioactive.
The London Daily Mail reports that the workers “expect to die,” but not that the worst radiation exposure among all the workers amounts to about as much as 15 CT scans, a dose that not only isn’t fatal, but that has no observable health effects.
A lot of bad reporting seems to come from mere scientific illiteracy.
Not only scientific illiteracy, but willful illiteracy. Combine the need to file a story — the more sensational, the better — with the anti-scientific bias that’s been “baked in” to journalism students for two generations, and this is what you get.
Some of it may be simply that fear sells papers, and a headline that says “Catastrophe imminent” sells more papers than “Catastrophe averted.”
But a lot of it appears to be purposeful — it’s no coincidence that the people spinning the wildest tales of catastrophe have also turned out to be associated with vehemently anti-nuclear think tanks and political pressure groups.
Whether it’s because of ignorance or on purpose, the effect of this misreporting it to keep people afraid.
This week in Guild Wars 2 news
I’ve been accumulating news snippets about the as-yet-to-be-formally-scheduled release of Guild Wars 2 for an email newsletter I send out to my friends and acquaintances in the Guild Wars community.
A mix of real and “real” news this week.
Part 1: Discussion of previous news
- Not technically Guild Wars-related, but the company from which ArenaNet’s founders started off: Blizzard, celebrates their 20th anniversary.
“You’ll find commercials for console games stuffed into just about every 30-second nook and cranny in primetime TV. After all, the audience is sitting in front of the TV for entertainment, and if you’re a console game developer or publisher, these are your people. So when Blizzard announced that it would air an advertisement for World of Warcraft: Cataclysm during a nationally televised Dallas Cowboys vs. Minnesota Vikings game, it was unprecedented. WoW has become such a staggeringly big and widly accepted entertainment product that broadcasting the opening cinematic for Cataclysm to an audience traditionally more interested in lime-flavored beer and Madden games doesn’t sound crazy. In the PC gaming ecosystem, only Blizzard has the clout to pull that off.” - Another WoW news item, but one that may impact other MMO games: Canada’s biggest internet service provider, Rogers Communications, has been deliberately throttling the internet connections of WoW players. “Rogers said that it was Blizzard’s use of BitTorrent to deliver updates that triggered the throttling, and said that customers who disabled this setting — as well as any other peer-to-peer applications — would not see a slowdown in speed. “
Part 2: Guild Wars news
- Creating the seven-hero vanquish team. “I run as an SoS ranger. If you’re a rit, even better. Most professions can run a decent SoS easy if you’ve got good energy management: necros, mesmers, eles, and rangers are your best bet. Dervs and Monks can pull it off with some major tweaking. You’ll struggle as a warrior, sin, or paragon, however. If you’re not an SoS, no worries. The team build I use allots for one.”
- Game update including a sneak peak at the new Guild Wars 2 profession — the Commando.
- The commandos are here. “Cpl. Bane will be stationed at Embark Beach until ~noon PDT on Monday. Speak to him before then — the very future depends on it! “
Part 3: Guild Wars 2 news
- Elixabeth at TalkTyria looks at the recently introduced Hylek: “One word has changed. The nature of the hylek really hasn’t changed at all. They are a sentient people with which we as player characters may have peaceable relations or full-on warfare. We see that they still look very much like the frog-men we’ve all come to love stomping on. Their tribal culture seems relatively unaltered. They are still more or less behind on the technology curve, since they have to trade with other sentients for weapons and other goods. The hylek are in most ways indistinguishable from the heket — which leads many people to beg the question “why change the name at all?” What purpose does this serve?”
- Another gameplay example from PAX East, this time in HD. The background crowd noise is a bit irritating, but this is a single player trying out a Guardian, so there’s some good views of individual and group combat, including recovering from the downed state and the use of chained skills.
- ArenaNet announces their convention schedule for the summer, including Comic-Con — July 20-24, 2011, Gamescom — Aug 17-21, 2011, and PAX — Aug 26 -28, 2011.
- Part 1 of an interview with Daniel Dociu, ArenaNet’s Art Director for Guild Wars 2. “The development team has grown a great deal, with the size of the art department having more than doubled. We’re currently in the mid 80s as far as number of artists on the team and that has lead to my role evolving into more of an oversight role. I still insist on art directing in a very hands-on fashion and still spend a fair amount of time getting my hands dirty creating concept art, but I also have to delegate a lot more. The lead artists and all artists in general are encouraged to contribute more of their own vision to the game. Growth is a mixed blessing as it creates a new set of difficulties: more structure is needed; more processes have to be implemented, policed, and massaged to fit our development culture. But it’s also more rewarding. The game we feel is going to be so much better. Bigger, better, and more beautiful.”
- GW2Guru’s exclusive interview with ArenaNet. “How this information has not been leaked yet, I do not know. It’s big, folks. And when I say big, I mean game changing big. Today, ArenaNet has given the go-ahead to release this information, so here goes. Given that the GW2 beta is scheduled for late August 2012, ArenaNet wanted to give everyone a head start on purchasing their iPads. Wait, what did you just say? That’s right, folks. Guild Wars 2 will be releasing exclusively to the iPad!”
- Revealing the seventh profession: the Shadowmancer! “The shadowmancer is a spell casting, scholar profession which is able to effectively prevent damage to itself by becoming invisible and invincible while at the same time dealing out considerable damage.”
- Revealing the eighth profession: the Commando! “A master of the battlefield, this elite soldier is equally at home on the mean streets of Lion’s Arch, in the steamy Maguuma Jungle, or on the Orrian front. The multi-role commando is a combat medic, an infiltrator, and a tank. By land, sea, or air, the commando is a technological force to be reckoned with. Come get some.”
- Interview with Jon Peters about the Commando. “Flamethrower is good in a variety of situations — you can create a basic flamethrower fire attack, but you can also air blast projectiles, create a burning area on the ground, or flame-jump around the map.”
- Another look at the Commando.
“PC Gamer: The Commando’s motto is “if it bleeds, I can kill it.” If it’s, say, undead, and it doesn’t bleed, then can he still kill it?
“Jon Peters: The good thing is that everything in the game can be bled, so that lets the Commando pretty much kill everything, but in future we may introduce some none bleeding types to see if that has any balance impact for him.” - April Fool’s Day video from GuildMag.
- Interview with Eric Flannum on the Commando.
