techyum ::

Andres Behring Breivik, from Politicons.net.

The photo above was published, unconfirmed, on the conservative blog Politicons.net. The blogger claims it’s a photo of the 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who has been arrested in conjunction with both the huge terrorist bombing in downtown Oslo and the massacre at the Labor Party’s nearby youth camp.

The Norwegian press has categorized him as a right-wing extremist and a self-claimed Freemason, which was enough to start the tinfoil hat parade of people posting online that he’s a mind-controlled slave to the Illuminati. Wikipedia linked to a page of Breivik’s comments on the website Document.no, which is described as an anti-Muslim website (though as far as I can tell, it seems more like a garden-variety Norwegian conservative site).

That website’s publisher put a link to Breivik’s comments on its front page, with a notice that it was doing so because of attention aimed at Breivik. Strangely, several of Breivik’s comments seem to focus on his wanting to take over a leadership role at the site, but I read this as self-aggrandizing behavior on Breivik’s part, not necessarily culpability on the part of the site.

Though the comments were made in Norwegian — and Document.no is a Norwegian site — it’s easy enough to generate a spotty Google Translate version that, despite the linguistic and contextual problems inherent to auto-translations, proves deeply disturbing the more you read of it.

Incidentally, as I write this, no indication of a conspiracy or wide-ranging plot has appeared, that I can find, either in the Norwegian or English-language press. He appears to have acted alone.

A story in Norwegian referenced Breivk’s claimed Facebook page, and noted that it had reportedly been deleted several times (I’m not clear on whether it was for objectionable content). The Politicons blog links to what claims to be his Twitter account, where there’s only one Tweet…but it’s creepy as hell:

It’s a quote from John Stuart Mill. Though Mill is an important figure in “liberal political philosophy,” it should be noted that this is actually a different use of the term “liberal” than is meant when it’s used today in the United States. That “liberal” tag is sometimes used by those that I see as economically right-wing to claim that they are “original liberals” or subscribe to “classical liberalism.” Ultra-Conservative wonks love to pull that liberal tag out to confuse issues about who’s the liberal, and to avoid calling themselves conservative. Though he was, for the times, socially liberal, advocating free speech and personal liberty, it’s John Stuart Mill’s dreams of personal liberty based on free-market economics that so influence the right today. Never mind that Mill once wrote, “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

But Breivik was not afraid to call himself conservative, and does so (choosing the label “cultural conservative”) on Document.no. In short, Breivik appears to be, as the New York Times reported and the Norwegian press has categorized him, a right-wing extremist. From his comments on Document.no, he is anti-Muslim and anti-multicultural, also strongly anti-Marxist and anti-Nazi. His writings speak repeatedly of “the European struggle” against “Islamic immigration.” Though he appears to be  a fan of Norwegian anti-Nazi Resistance fighter Max Manus, his language on Document.no is disturbingly reminiscent both of the ’30s National Socialists (and their affiliated groups in other countries, particularly England) and of the vaguer, more coded anti-immigrant messages from today’s right-wing groups in the U.S., particularly California (long the heartland of neo-Nazi and White Nationalist groups). “The European Struggle” sounds like it could be the title of a Nazi propaganda film.

The truly disturbing thing is that I can already hear in my head the apologist sentiments from people in the U.S. who might be unfamiliar with Nazi, white nationalist and other crypto-extremist ideology that tries to sound reasonable. Conservatives, pro-Americans, self-appointed Libertarians and tell-it-like-it-is types often interpret comments like Breivik’s as being reasonable…a sort of “common sense” response to the riddle of global terrorism. That is…when they don’t come from a guy who just killed dozens of his own countrypeople.

In fact, Breivik’s comments, at least insofar as I (inexpertly) interpret the Norwegian, are a mix of conservative political ideology and heavily-coded allusions to race war, in language that seems transparent to any student of German, South African, or Russian history. These codes are mixed in with explicitly anti-Islamist statements that could easily have been among the “more reasonable” comments left on virtually any Fox News or CNN story about Islamic terrorism…and that’s the weird part. Breivik is clearly a racist, pinko-hating nut who gets hives when children sing Kumbaya, but I don’t see any premonitions of violence, at least not directly. I just see the same stuff that often comes from some of the more educated Americans who have a bone to pick with multiculturalism and what they’ve decided is “Marxism” — and do so with single-minded fanaticism, while still sounding like some of the more reasonable people posting on the net. His comments include the opinion that Marxism is a hate-based ideology like Islamism and Naziism, but that all hate-based ideologies that lead to slaughter should be considered the same. He seems, despite his prejudiced statements, to claim be anti-hate…and anti-slaughter.

I don’t know if, in that context, it would be more or less disturbing if the people Breivik slaughtered hadn’t been mostly blonde, blue-eyed Norwegians like himself. Breivik’s objection appears to have been to the whole direction he believed European society was headed — toward multiculturalism. To counteract that, he set off bombs in Oslo and murdered, en masse, young people.

His perceived campaign seems to have been against the “multiculturalist” elements — that is, the Norwegian political left — but it’s as hard to reconcile Breivik’s claimed politics with his actions as it is Timothy McVeigh’s. It’s hard to see anything but utter madness in his behavior. Even the term “mental illness” becomes insufficient to describe the kinds of maladies of the soul that drive someone to behave like this. It’s tempting to try to view Breivik’s right-wing politics as the source of his behavior. But it’s far more likely that, for Breivik alone, they were a symptom of extreme disturbance, not a cause of his rampage.

And maybe that’s the way it usually is. Clearly terrorist violence from any quarter defies reason on some level. That’s the very thing that makes the dream logic of slaughter both fascinating and unendingly torturous to consider. But if anybody ever needs reminding that race-based hatred and militancy lead to indiscriminate violence, I hope they’ll remember the case of Breivik’s anti-multicultural race war…against Norwegians.

Here are a few of his creepier comments, translation jerryrigged and semi-paraphrased from Google Translate and my own interpretation:

Japan and South Korea are clear examples of countries that consistently and very directly dismissed multiculturalism. They were steadfast in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s and this continues to this day…The UN has for years been trying to push [Japan and South Korea] to receive hundreds of thousands of refugees…Multiculturalists will be very embarrassed if you mention Japan and South Korea as these nations proves quite obvious that mass immigration is only a result of specific Marxist doctrines, and is very rarely allowed. Japan / South Korea has a border and border guards. If one lacks the visa one is denied passage…(Europe had this scheme prior 1950-1960). The interesting question is, why aren’t the Japanese and South Koreans demonized as the Nazis and fascists? We know the answer…

…

The problem is that it often does not help that 80% of Muslims are “moderates”, ie they ignore the Quran. “It takes very few people to overthrow a plane.” …What percentage is the Taliban of Pakistan’s population? 1%, 3%, 5%? And how much chaos is there today? In every society where Islam exists there will be a certain percentage of the Muslims who actually follow the traditional interpretations of the Koran…And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called “moderate Muslims”…There are moderate Nazis, too, that will not support fumigation of Jews. But they’re still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?

Unfortunately, Marxists have already infiltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work as professors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differently. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies. Not all Muslims, Nazis and Marxists are conservative, most are moderate. But does it matter? A moderate Nazi might, after having experienced fraud, choose to be conservative. A moderate Muslim can, after being refused to enter a club, be conservative, etc…It is obvious that the moderate supporters of hate-ideologies, at a later date may choose conservatism.

Islam (ism) has historically led to 300 million deaths

Communism has historically led to 100 million deaths

Nazism has historically led to 6-20 million deaths

ALL hate ideologies should be treated equally….

According to two studies  13% of young British Muslims between 15 and 25 support Al Qaeda’s ideology. The UK is representative for Norway, so I would guess that at least 15-20% of Norwegian Muslims support murder of gays. There is certainly no fewer that supports the killing of gays than to support Al Qaeda.

…

Although the majority of humanists but also many liberals are anti-nationalists, and is therefore by definition cultural Marxists. Promote either multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) or monoculture (nationalist), there is nothing in between, even though most do not dare to admit this yet. Well, there’s the multi-culture without Islam is a middle ground…The old definitions often do not apply anymore. Eg. the British Tories who actually still dare to call themselves conservatives support cultural Marxism / multiculturalism and should be renamed. One cannot support cultural Marxism/ multiculturalism and simultaneously call themselves conservative…The majority on the right side has unfortunately not yet found out that one must defeat multiculturalism in order to defeat the Islamization as many still see themselves as multiculturalists…

 

…Sometime in the future, most will have to flag the point of view, you will have to make a choice: nationalism or internationalism.

[Link.]

There’s a lot more — about 16,000 words of it. More to come, I’m sure.

About a year ago, the UK’s The Engineeer reported that the newest hope for a Future Filled With Flying Cars, the Terrafugia Transition, was likely headed for airports in the United States. It had just cleared a major regulatory hurdle in the United States when the FAA had allowed manufacturers an extra exemption in their attempt to qualify in the “light sport” category of aircraft.

That’s important why? Because aircraft in the light sport category only require about 20 hours of training to fly. It means that craft need to be under a 1,320-pound limit, but the FAA unexpectedly gave Terrafugia an extra exemption of 110 pounds. That means the folding-wing craft will probably qualify. But according to an article today in the Daily Mail, shortly after that story things looked dicey, when the FAA requested changes amounting to something like $20 million.

Well, the U.S. military came to the rescue, inveigling the Boston-based Terrafugia into its $60 million plan to develop a flying Hummer. (I’ve been working on that for years, too, but the damn flight attendants…scratch that, no, no, I just can’t go there.) Once the FAA approves the Transition, it’ll be a small matter for the European authorities to clear it, too, since they tend to follow the FAA’s lead on small craft.

Anyway, the Transition is far more promising than this bizarre vehicle, which showed at the Bangalore airshow…and appears to be an economy car that someone staple-gunned a wing on the top of.

Importantly, though, the Transition isn’t the sort of fly-by-wire thing that was trumpeted at the end of last century by Davis, California-based company Moller, which planned its Skycar to be flown on an automatic system that guaranteed cars wouldn’t run into each other in the air. That proved out of reach, along with some of Moller’s other technology — and Moller declared bankruptcy a few years back. By all accounts, the Moller Skycar is dead, and it looks like the Terrafugia Transition assumes its Jetsons crown. In general, the flying car category is the resting place of many wacky designs, as well as fantastically bizarre claims from “experts” — like those from NASA who said, in the press for a 2007 design competition, that “45% of all miles traveled” in the future might be by “personal air vehicle,” or ultra-small plane (aka “flying car.”)

The short version? We won’t be zipping around city skies any time soon or flipping bitches between the Twin Peaks TV antennas. The Transition is flown just like a light sport plane; the wings fold up in 15 seconds at the touch of a button and you can stash it in your garage or drive it on the freeway. It needs about 1,500 feet to take off, but in the U.S. it would be unlawful to fly it randomly off the freeway.

The original article at the Engineer was saying the plane/car would likely go on sale for about $194,000, but the Daily Mail is now saying it’ll be closer to $250,000 in the U.S. That may sound like a chunk of change — it does to me — but it’s actually not completely out of step with what a new small plane costs nowadays, and most small planes don’t hit the highway unless it’s in a bad way. A new single-engine Cessna, for instance, starts in the low $100,000s, though you can get one used in good condition for a heck of a lot less than that. The Terrafugia Transition is said to get up to about 42 miles to the gallon on the ground. The Daily Mail says it drinks high-octane gas, but I’m not clear on exactly how high-octane. Usually I would assume that means AvGas, the typical fuel for small planes in the United States. But it looks, from the photo above, like it actually means straight-up road gasoline, srsly.

The advantages of a flying car over a light airplane are many, and will be obvious to anyone who’s ever flown in a small plane to an airport and then had to arrange ground transportation; getting a cab to come out to the kind of places they tend to stash recreation-friendly small-plane airports is sometimes pretty challenging. It’s one of the (many) reasons seaplanes are so popular places like Alaska, where one can tether a plane to your dock and not have to worry about finding an airport.

Plus, from below, it looks like a hammerhead shark:

Misunderstanding the title of Jules Verne’s 1870 science fiction masterpiece Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea seems to be a pastime for English speakers everywhere. It’s such a commonly warped meaning that, believe it or not, “Saturday Night Live” even did a skit about the misunderstanding — and that’s not a show known for its nerd cred with science fiction people or oceanographers.

But I would have expected Dictionary.com to get it, since their job is, you know, defining things and stuff. Not so! In their July 8 Word of the Day Entry about why the shuttle Atlantis is called Atlantis, they say this:

What does “Atlantis” mean? And why is the Space Shuttle Atlantis named after something underwater?

 

The final space shuttle mission has blasted off, launching the fascinating word mystery of “Atlantis” into our consciousness: How did the name of a mythical kingdom thousands of leagues under the sea become the moniker for a vehicle soaring  thousands of miles into space?

[Link.]

Okay, first let me say that I am in favor of people discussing Atlantis every chance they can, but this is kind of a dumb question. It doesn’t seem any weirder to me to name a space shuttle after Atlantis than it does to name a U.S. battleship after the state of Iowa, or a 10-gun brig sloop after a kind of dog bred to fly biplanes. “But why would they call that aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk? It’s not a kitty…and it’s not a hawk, either!” They name ships and planes all sorts of shit, srsly.

But I would be far more forgiving of the central problem with that leading paragraph if the word league didn’t link to this entry, which the author must not have read, since it kinda spells it out with definition 2:

(noun) a unit of distance, varying at different periods and in different countries, in English-speaking countries usually estimated roughly at 3 miles (4.8 kilometers).

Ergo, in case you missed it…twenty thousand leagues? Sixty thousand miles. Depending on where you stand, it’s roughly 3,947 to 3,968 miles to the center of the earth, so 60,000 miles would be past the sea, DEEP under the Earth…and out the other side of it, out the atmosphere, and a good portion of the way to the Moon, which orbits something like a quarter-million miles away.

Verne’s original title was Vingt mille lieues sous les mers, for which the “sea” word there is “mers,” meaning not “sea” but “seas,” which makes the intention somewhat clearer…the main character of Verne’s book travels 20,000 leagues or 60,000 miles under the seas, the same way I traveled 1,000 leagues or 3,000-ish miles from New York to San Diego when I was 19. In the book, they go as deep as four leagues or twelve miles, which is impossible — but they didn’t know that then.

At the time the “league” came in to use as a unit of measurement, they didn’t really have a concept for depth in the same way we do now, for obvious reasons. Everywhere I have ever read it, the term carries the strong connotation of horizontal travel, so it’s always kind of weird to me that people misconstrue it.

Mind you, that’s not the only Verne novel with a screwed-up English title that teaches people bad science when it’s misunderstood. The other one that springs to mind is Voyage au centre de la Terre, which can’t blame its misrepresentative title on a slight mistranslation. Though it was translated into English in 1877 as Journey to the Interior of the Earth, it had already been translated in 1871 as Journey to the Center of the Earth, which is the more accurate of the two translations of the title (duh….”centre” = “center,” not “interior.”).

That book never features anyone going anywhere near the “center” of the Earth; as I recall, they descend an undisclosed distance below the surface. The book does feature a screwed-up compass acting anomalously. This wonky-compass was reproduced in the 1959 film with James Mason and Pat Boone as a harmonica and other metal items flying around wildly. This was then explained as establishing that the characters are at the point equidistant from the Earth’s north and south magnetic poles — the center of the Earth. (Also, Pat Boone loses his pants not long after that). Since it’s the action of molten metallic elements in the Earth’s core(s) that creates the magnetic field in the first place, this wouldn’t happen (but there’s also probably not ape-men under the Earth).

It’s not the novel that gave them that idea, however. In the novel, the compass gets hit with an electric charge, and that’s why it goes nutty. Lots of the other science is wrong (volcanoes being a chemical reaction, etc), but that particular dream is not in the book.