Marmot's Hole some time ago pointed out that Wikileaks' Afghan War Logs had been reported to contain information pointing to a missile deal between the Taliban and North Korea. But the information referred to is not in the Afghan War Log leaks made so far. You can download the lot, if you like, and search for HELMEND, the telltale misspelling of Helmand province. There are no results for this, or other words and phrases in the log, and searching by date yields nothing.
Pressed on this Jeff Stein, rather than pointing out a link to the specific record, eventually linked to an excel spreadsheet created by the Guardian. It is in the spreadsheet, but why is the Guardian including information that isn't in the War Logs leak? Does the Guardian already have the remaining information referred to on the War Logs page in Wikileaks?
As it is, there is no indication of where the information came from.
Friday, 27 August 2010
Monday, 21 June 2010
All tied up
USA Today got its typing in a twist as it hurriedly scribbled about the United States' Michael Bradley's dissatisfaction with the referee, taking dozens of other sites with it.
Bradley had a point, the referee was terrible. But the game was against Slovenia.
As the final whistle blew in the USA’s 2-2 draw with Algeria, Michael Bradley rushed toward the referee, just as he did when Maurice Edu’s goal in the 85th minute was disallowed
Friday, 4 June 2010
Laser-guided shot in the dark
The Korea Herald yesterday reported that Kim Jong-il had disappeared, his last known whereabouts being 12 days previously. This was taken as a sign that the end is nigh for the Kims.
Worse still, the NK leadership is an easy target, the paper says on the same page, for precision bombing. Apparently the Iraq war was a good example of this. As you'll remember, Sadam Hussein was bombed instantly, and wasn't at all found years after the war started hiding in a bunker.
Curiously though, the article doesn't go into detail about how the Allies (for it will be them) will manage to precision bomb Kim Jong-il when they don't know where he is. Amazing what modern technology can do, isn't it?
Worse still, the NK leadership is an easy target, the paper says on the same page, for precision bombing. Apparently the Iraq war was a good example of this. As you'll remember, Sadam Hussein was bombed instantly, and wasn't at all found years after the war started hiding in a bunker.
Curiously though, the article doesn't go into detail about how the Allies (for it will be them) will manage to precision bomb Kim Jong-il when they don't know where he is. Amazing what modern technology can do, isn't it?
Factory flaw
It's a sad and sober point. The Foxconn factory that has been in the news for a spate of suicides has seen 12 of its 420,000 workers commit suicide this year, a rate that pales in significance when compared to the suicide rate in Korea.
That's 3 per 100,000 in six months or 6 per 100,000 a year.
That figure is less than a quarter of the suicide rate of Korea in 2008 - 26 per 100,000. A report on Wednesday said that the number of suicides had hit a new record, rising 18.8 percent. There has been no significant change in overall population in the last few years, so one can only presume that the rate has risen similarly, to 29 per 100,000 -almost five times the rate of the Foxconn factory.
That's 3 per 100,000 in six months or 6 per 100,000 a year.
That figure is less than a quarter of the suicide rate of Korea in 2008 - 26 per 100,000. A report on Wednesday said that the number of suicides had hit a new record, rising 18.8 percent. There has been no significant change in overall population in the last few years, so one can only presume that the rate has risen similarly, to 29 per 100,000 -almost five times the rate of the Foxconn factory.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
To 3D or not 3D
There have been several blog posts (here and here) where people, including me, have pointed out that the torpedo design pictured in many news articles and at the presentation does not match the :found remains. However, I think this may be down to one small thing: The South Korean government is not very good at colouring in.
At the center of the argument are four main differences, as outlined in the photo from the Willyloman blog.
They are:
A: The end is narrower in the design than on the torpedo.
B: The recess on the propeller in the design is not evident in the wreckage
D: The area between the propellers is different.
C: A part on the design seems to be in a different place on the wreckage.
A better quality image cna be found here.It should also be noted that this was one of two designs shown. They appear to be the same design, but the one in the image above shows some of the design coloured in or outlined for illustrative purposes. The other one can be seen (though not very clearly) in this video. Here's a snapshot:
Note the two hatched and cross-hatched areas that I have very amateurishly arrowed.
Note also that this is a cross section. The object is round, so these are probably tapered cylinders attached to the fins of the propeller. The hub, if that isn't an already used up word.
Here's a closer view of the coloured in diagram.
You can see here that the illustrators have chosen to render the shaft and the piece of engine as a simlified 3D rendering. For some reason, the propellers have not been rendered in 3D. Equally strange, the gubbins marked 3 has been left out entirely. This could be due to lack of information, and because they didn't have enough of the rest of the design to draw it.However, even on this scale, you can see that the outline of the rear propeller has not been done properly: it isn't even symmetrical.
You can also see that the part marked C on the Willyloman blog doesn't clearly match anything in the found object.
Going closer in:
You can see the hatched areas mentioned above have not been included in the outline at 2 and 3.
But these are clearly part of the propeller, and must surely be the drum they are attached to (or whatever the correct term is). The lack of symmetry in the back of the outline is really bloody obvious here too.
So what would it look like if the hatched areas were included? Well it would make the hub look much broader. It would be longer too. The line marked "butt" is approximately where the hub would end. After this is taken into account, the design looks much more like the propeller that was found. Moreover, the indentation (marked 1 in my photo and B on the Willyloman blog) is actually inside the hub, between the drum and the shaft, and not between the drum and the blades as argued.
There are an awful lot of questions that remain about the incident. But most of them do not relate to the cause of the sinking. They pertain more to the circumstances of the sinking, how the North was able to do it, and why it took so long to rescue the sailors.
As for this particular question, the government has been woeful in its response, and it's one they could have cleared up much more quickly and simply. Perhaps they wanted to keep face. There are also questions about the media, whose wish to save face (and not just in Korea) is legendary.
The government must have known the coloured in diagram was more photogenic, so why did they do such a sloppy job of it? Meanwhile, the media, having swapped accuracy for a brighter photo, have done little to address the concerns raised.
At the center of the argument are four main differences, as outlined in the photo from the Willyloman blog.
They are:A: The end is narrower in the design than on the torpedo.
B: The recess on the propeller in the design is not evident in the wreckage
D: The area between the propellers is different.
C: A part on the design seems to be in a different place on the wreckage.
A better quality image cna be found here.It should also be noted that this was one of two designs shown. They appear to be the same design, but the one in the image above shows some of the design coloured in or outlined for illustrative purposes. The other one can be seen (though not very clearly) in this video. Here's a snapshot:
Note the two hatched and cross-hatched areas that I have very amateurishly arrowed.Note also that this is a cross section. The object is round, so these are probably tapered cylinders attached to the fins of the propeller. The hub, if that isn't an already used up word.
Here's a closer view of the coloured in diagram.
You can see here that the illustrators have chosen to render the shaft and the piece of engine as a simlified 3D rendering. For some reason, the propellers have not been rendered in 3D. Equally strange, the gubbins marked 3 has been left out entirely. This could be due to lack of information, and because they didn't have enough of the rest of the design to draw it.However, even on this scale, you can see that the outline of the rear propeller has not been done properly: it isn't even symmetrical.
You can also see that the part marked C on the Willyloman blog doesn't clearly match anything in the found object.
Going closer in:
You can see the hatched areas mentioned above have not been included in the outline at 2 and 3.
But these are clearly part of the propeller, and must surely be the drum they are attached to (or whatever the correct term is). The lack of symmetry in the back of the outline is really bloody obvious here too.
So what would it look like if the hatched areas were included? Well it would make the hub look much broader. It would be longer too. The line marked "butt" is approximately where the hub would end. After this is taken into account, the design looks much more like the propeller that was found. Moreover, the indentation (marked 1 in my photo and B on the Willyloman blog) is actually inside the hub, between the drum and the shaft, and not between the drum and the blades as argued.
There are an awful lot of questions that remain about the incident. But most of them do not relate to the cause of the sinking. They pertain more to the circumstances of the sinking, how the North was able to do it, and why it took so long to rescue the sailors.
As for this particular question, the government has been woeful in its response, and it's one they could have cleared up much more quickly and simply. Perhaps they wanted to keep face. There are also questions about the media, whose wish to save face (and not just in Korea) is legendary.
The government must have known the coloured in diagram was more photogenic, so why did they do such a sloppy job of it? Meanwhile, the media, having swapped accuracy for a brighter photo, have done little to address the concerns raised.
It's the economy...
New York Times (via Kushibo) reports that President Lee is getting a popularity boost from the Cheonan.
But a month earlier was in April, which was still after the Cheonan sank, and the Hankyoreh was very keen to report a drop in approval after the sinking. Irrespective of findings, Pyongyang has always been the main suspect for the sinking, so the increase in perception of the threat from the North would not have changed since April.
In fact, Lee's popularity at 52 percent puts him roughly where he started at the beginning of the year, when the Korea Times reported support of 51.6 percent (you do the rounding). Perhaps the dip was due to right-wingers looking for a more firm response. Perhaps people's doubts have been eased since the conclusion of the probe. Whatever the reason for the dip in support, there doesn't appear to be any net change in support.
Lee's popularity is probably more to do with the economy, as this report attests, with Lee, and his party slowly climbing in approval ratings throughout the second half of 2009.
Soon after taking office two years ago, Mr. Lee appeared at risk of losing public support, as he faced mass demonstrations on the streets of Seoul against the import of United States beef. Now, political experts are talking about the “Cheonan effect,” as polls show that more than half of expected voters approve of the president and his tougher line toward the North.
...
“The Cheonan is having a huge effect by pushing voters to rally around the flag,” said Kim Ki-shik, a political analyst at the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a policy research group.A telephone poll of 800 likely voters conducted Saturday by the East Asia Institute, a political research group, found that 52 percent of respondents approved of Mr. Lee in May, up from 46 percent a month earlier.
But a month earlier was in April, which was still after the Cheonan sank, and the Hankyoreh was very keen to report a drop in approval after the sinking. Irrespective of findings, Pyongyang has always been the main suspect for the sinking, so the increase in perception of the threat from the North would not have changed since April.
In fact, Lee's popularity at 52 percent puts him roughly where he started at the beginning of the year, when the Korea Times reported support of 51.6 percent (you do the rounding). Perhaps the dip was due to right-wingers looking for a more firm response. Perhaps people's doubts have been eased since the conclusion of the probe. Whatever the reason for the dip in support, there doesn't appear to be any net change in support.
Lee's popularity is probably more to do with the economy, as this report attests, with Lee, and his party slowly climbing in approval ratings throughout the second half of 2009.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
And the winner is...
The new official english nickname for makgeolli is "drunken rice."
Yep you read that right. Apparently the alternatives under consideration were "makohol" and "makelixhir." Jesus. Why don't they just call it "tramp's breakfast?"
Incidentally, drunken rice is already the name of a Thai dish. Which you eat. How you could possibly think drunken rice was an appropriate name for a drink, and not a food, I don't know.
Yep you read that right. Apparently the alternatives under consideration were "makohol" and "makelixhir." Jesus. Why don't they just call it "tramp's breakfast?"
Incidentally, drunken rice is already the name of a Thai dish. Which you eat. How you could possibly think drunken rice was an appropriate name for a drink, and not a food, I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
