With the holidays and family travels, I neglected my blog over the past fortnight. But for my return I thought I'd stray from my usual topics to speak about my web doodling over the past month.
I don't think "web doodling" is actually a term, however I think it accurately describes my amateur attempt at creating a website. Although I've experienced many trials and frustrating hours trying to get my ideas and interests into html, I must confess that a sadistic side of me actually enjoyed it. And now that I have found a comfortable zone of knowledge and experience, I'm having fun improving and toying with my new, virtual outlet.
Along the way I gathered a few tutorial sites into my Firefox bookmarks, tutorials which decreased my learning curve considerably and allowed me to create a better site than my limited knowledge would have otherwise.
First of all I recommend gaining some basic knowledge. I'd never design a site by writing the code, but obtaining a basic understanding of it and how it works helped me greatly along the way, and allowed me to take some shortcuts I would not have though of otherwise. This site provided me with a great start:
Beginner's Web Design Tutorial
If you have Adobe Photoshop (which I use extensively), the following site offers a great tutorial on using Photoshop to design a website, and even create effects with it, such as rollovers.
Photoshop Collage Tutorial
Perhaps the most important ingredient to my success though was a WYSIWIG ("What You See Is What You Get") web editing program. Unwilling to fork over the money for Dreamweaver, I Googled my way to a piece of freeware that nicely does the trick. It may not have all the bells and whistles one finds with a professional piece of software like Dreameaver. But at least the bells and whistles are priced right. Called "NVU," the program may be downloaded here:
NVU
Even without Photoshop, one can easily do up a website using NVU with just a little patience (something my wife constantly informs me I am lacking) and practice.
But if you don't have Photoshop, freeware exists to cover that as well! A program called GIMP works very much like Photoshop and possesses a similar interface. Anyone who's used Photoshop will get the hang of GIMP fairly rapidly. Once again, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of Adobe, but hey, it's free!
GIMP
Well, I'm off to play with my website, which thanks to the above links and software, is not quite as embarrassing as it might have been! (Well, I can't necessarily say that for the content.)
Monday, December 31, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Al Gore, Climate Change, and the Nobel "Peace" Prize
This week Al Gore accepted his half of the Nobel Peace Prize for his and the IPCC's work on "man-made climate change."
My first thought when the organization announced the prize earlier this year was, "what does climate change have to do with peace?" After reading the text of the prize several times awaiting divine inspiration, I still don't know. Perhaps they assumed anthropogenic global warming stands a high probability of creating tensions likely to lead to war.
As for anthropogenic global warming itself, I personally have my doubts and am honestly disappointed that the media doesn't seem to even question it. It makes the limited debates prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003 look like 1968 America by comparison! I am daily inundated with printed and television news pieces, advertisements, and documentaries that religiously proclaim the causes of global warming: cars, planes, pigs, cows, power plants, ships... (but apparently flatulent kangaroos do not contribute to our ensuing demise).
However the opposite is not true. I rarely hear any statements that contradict the anthropogenic theory. I couldn't even rattle off the leading theories on the cause(s) of the last Ice Age, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, or the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Maybe others don't, but I find that odd. When I see a thunderstorm approaching, or feel the earth vibrating beneath me here in California, I know with certainty the causes based upon experience and education.
Yet I am supposed to swallow without a cry of "but" that this current period of global warming is different from all other climate changes in history. I'm allowed to study these historical periods to my heart's content and the depth of my post-collegiate pockets, but not allowed to use any educational knowledge I acquire in the process to judge the current climate change (or so it seems from my layman's chair). Besides, if I do gather the gall to cry "but," I am obviously an idiot, right-wing nut job, a consultant on Exxon's payroll, or all of the above.
Let's face it though. Greenland is called "Green" land for a reason. When the Vikings first landed there, it was a wonderfully warm place, not the frozen locale we've known in our short lifespans and those of our forefathers for a mere few centuries. In fact, the Little Ice Age directly contributed to the failure of Norse colonization efforts in the "New World." And like that failure centuries ago, climate changes can have positive effects in some areas and negatives in others. Colder here, warmer there. Wetter there, drier here. Better here, worse there. Personally I (and according to archaeological and historical evidence humans as a whole) prefer warm periods to cold periods.
Perhaps today's warming is anthropogenic. Perhaps we as a society are at fault. My problem is that we're not even allowed to debate it. Gore and others of his ilk publicly treat detractors or even those who simply want discussion as if they just claimed to speak with Martians or spent the night in an Oregon forest with Bigfoot. It's academically acceptable to question string theory or ask if FDR possessed foreknowledge of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Heck, I can probably even question the accepted causes of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. But obviously only an absolute moron would question the causes of this particular global warming period.
Well, in that case, call me a moron.
My first thought when the organization announced the prize earlier this year was, "what does climate change have to do with peace?" After reading the text of the prize several times awaiting divine inspiration, I still don't know. Perhaps they assumed anthropogenic global warming stands a high probability of creating tensions likely to lead to war.
As for anthropogenic global warming itself, I personally have my doubts and am honestly disappointed that the media doesn't seem to even question it. It makes the limited debates prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003 look like 1968 America by comparison! I am daily inundated with printed and television news pieces, advertisements, and documentaries that religiously proclaim the causes of global warming: cars, planes, pigs, cows, power plants, ships... (but apparently flatulent kangaroos do not contribute to our ensuing demise).
However the opposite is not true. I rarely hear any statements that contradict the anthropogenic theory. I couldn't even rattle off the leading theories on the cause(s) of the last Ice Age, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, or the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Maybe others don't, but I find that odd. When I see a thunderstorm approaching, or feel the earth vibrating beneath me here in California, I know with certainty the causes based upon experience and education.
Yet I am supposed to swallow without a cry of "but" that this current period of global warming is different from all other climate changes in history. I'm allowed to study these historical periods to my heart's content and the depth of my post-collegiate pockets, but not allowed to use any educational knowledge I acquire in the process to judge the current climate change (or so it seems from my layman's chair). Besides, if I do gather the gall to cry "but," I am obviously an idiot, right-wing nut job, a consultant on Exxon's payroll, or all of the above.
Let's face it though. Greenland is called "Green" land for a reason. When the Vikings first landed there, it was a wonderfully warm place, not the frozen locale we've known in our short lifespans and those of our forefathers for a mere few centuries. In fact, the Little Ice Age directly contributed to the failure of Norse colonization efforts in the "New World." And like that failure centuries ago, climate changes can have positive effects in some areas and negatives in others. Colder here, warmer there. Wetter there, drier here. Better here, worse there. Personally I (and according to archaeological and historical evidence humans as a whole) prefer warm periods to cold periods.
Perhaps today's warming is anthropogenic. Perhaps we as a society are at fault. My problem is that we're not even allowed to debate it. Gore and others of his ilk publicly treat detractors or even those who simply want discussion as if they just claimed to speak with Martians or spent the night in an Oregon forest with Bigfoot. It's academically acceptable to question string theory or ask if FDR possessed foreknowledge of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Heck, I can probably even question the accepted causes of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. But obviously only an absolute moron would question the causes of this particular global warming period.
Well, in that case, call me a moron.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Has anything really changed?
After reading the National Intelligence Assessment which seems to have stirred up so much controversy this week, I must ask, "Has anything really changed?"
Given all of the debate I'd seen in the press, and the accusations from Bush opponents using the report against him (not to mention Clinton's rival candidates against her), I fully expected to read a document that unequivocally shot down every statement the Bush Administration ever made to justify the harsh rhetoric and calls for tough sanctions against Iran because of its perceived nuclear ambitions. However, unless I suffer from a severe English comprehension handicap, the report did nothing of the sort. Below are some excerpts with my comments:
The opening sentence to the "Key Judgments" in the NIE states:
So has that much really changed according to this report? I don't think so. The one thing with which I strongly disagreed in the report was the judgment that Iran's stoppage in 2003 was "primarily in response to international pressures." This sounds as if the intelligence community is attributing the program's suspension to diplomacy. I believe the stoppage due to the same reason Libya halted its WMD program and came clean to the international community during the same period: the U.S. lead invasion of Iraq. Simply put, the Iraq invasion scared the Iranian leadership, just as it scared Qaddafi. In this regard it didn't matter that the U.S. found no WMDs. All that mattered to Libya and Iran was that the U.S. was willing to launch a preemptive war in the belief that they existed.
I hope this Estimate doesn't weaken the international front against Iran and undermine efforts to keep pressure on its leaders. But I fear it already has. If such is the case, this report will actually make war more likely, not less.
Moonspider
Given all of the debate I'd seen in the press, and the accusations from Bush opponents using the report against him (not to mention Clinton's rival candidates against her), I fully expected to read a document that unequivocally shot down every statement the Bush Administration ever made to justify the harsh rhetoric and calls for tough sanctions against Iran because of its perceived nuclear ambitions. However, unless I suffer from a severe English comprehension handicap, the report did nothing of the sort. Below are some excerpts with my comments:
The opening sentence to the "Key Judgments" in the NIE states:
We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. (NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par A)No longer is there an "alleged" nuclear weapons program. There definitely was a program up until 2003. Furthermore, with a significant probability it is believed Iran is keeping its options open to develop nuclear weapons.
We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)(NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par A, bullet 2)To reiterate, the DOE and NIC only have moderate confidence that Iran halted all nuclear weapons activities.
We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.(NIE, November 2007, pg 6, par A, bullet 3)They do not know Iran’s intentions. Thus one cannot say that Iran has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons based upon this Estimate.
Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.(NIE, November 2007, pg 7, par. D)The R&D in which Iran is currently engaged is dual purpose technology. This has always been the primary issue. The United States does not want Iran developing its own indigenous uranium enrichment process since it could lead to making HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium).
We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program. (NIE, November 2007, pg 7, par E)Once again, U.S. intelligence cannot say with confidence that Iran does not intend to restart the program.
We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. (NIE, November 2007, pg 7, par. E, bullet 2)U.S. intelligence believes (with moderate confidence) that Iran will eventually restart its nuclear weapon program.
So has that much really changed according to this report? I don't think so. The one thing with which I strongly disagreed in the report was the judgment that Iran's stoppage in 2003 was "primarily in response to international pressures." This sounds as if the intelligence community is attributing the program's suspension to diplomacy. I believe the stoppage due to the same reason Libya halted its WMD program and came clean to the international community during the same period: the U.S. lead invasion of Iraq. Simply put, the Iraq invasion scared the Iranian leadership, just as it scared Qaddafi. In this regard it didn't matter that the U.S. found no WMDs. All that mattered to Libya and Iran was that the U.S. was willing to launch a preemptive war in the belief that they existed.
I hope this Estimate doesn't weaken the international front against Iran and undermine efforts to keep pressure on its leaders. But I fear it already has. If such is the case, this report will actually make war more likely, not less.
Moonspider
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
