Slashdot Mirror

The easiest, and most common method, is to lock to GPS. GPS time, like TAI, is not adjusted for leap seconds like UTC. GPS time is 19 seconds behind TAI.

But note, NTP isn't based on TAI, but on UTC, so a leap second table is required to maintain accurate time. That's the simple explanation. NTP/UTC/leap seconds is more complex in reality.

This should work.

At the energy scale of interest, neutrons and protons scatter elastically and isotropically. When a neutron scatters a proton within a single detector, you can measure the time of impact and the energy transferred to the proton. Adding a second detector allows the possibility of a second scatter event, which you again can measure the time of impact and the energy transferred to the proton. Now, using the time-of-flight between the two detectors, the relative positions of the two detectors, and the energy transferred in each collision, you can reconstruct a cone of angles where the incident neutron came from. This is essentially the same technique Compton telescopes use to resolve gamma (also chargeless!) signals. I'm guessing this is what Sandia does.

Perhaps HD is in the eye of the beholder? The Clementine program mapped the moon about 15 years ago using a combination of UV IR and visible light cameras that were good to 125 m/pixel. That was all digital of course. You can get more information here http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/Clementine/ and see some pretty cool photos at 1Km - 32Km per pixel resolution here: http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

The Kitty Hawk is not a super-carrier. Its the last conventional carrier left in the US Navy. Japan won't allow a Nuke powered aircraft carrier to be home ported in Japan.

Considering the Kitty Hawk has no S3 Viking (Anti-Submarine) Wing, this is a non-story except for people who want to bash the USA. http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/Air%20Wing/cvw5.htm

The Daily Mail in the UK can't report this?

Cheers to the Chinese Navy though. Job well done.

Enjoy,

Actually, they are using fuel cells to power the subs now, which means 6000nm range, across 45 days. They also have sterling engines available to generate power/thrust as needed. See the wiki on Air-Independent Propulsion.

It's not that surprising that the Chinese sub was allowed to surface inside the task force. I'm guessing they will use this story to increase military spending somehow. The US, in addition to the typical ship-based sonar, will also have many sub escorts traveling with it. Also, they have seafloor based sonar emplacements. Although SOSUS is old and not very up to date, you can bet there's some other seafloor emplacements we haven't heard of.

Also, during a training excercise, they are going to be making a lot of noise and doing stuff they wouldn't otherwise do. All those things together would make it likely that a modern sub could infiltrate fairly close without being noticed. I doubt the Chinese would "pearl harbor" us, nor that a submarine torpedo would do much damage to a carrier, but it is interesting. Especially interesting is they could bring their nukes within range of the west or east coast of the U.S., assuming this is factual. Which makes this more scary. China does have nukes and probably has some cruise missles which can carry them.

Mwuh? Blue-green laser? For communications, but for detection?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.global-defence.com%2F2000%2Fpages%2Fantisub.html&ei=dQQ5R9ONCZqmpwSDpri5DA&usg=AFQjCNFurOKcHV-O93WzeGxSR3G52nZNHA&sig2=nQgPQgY1Z_CHW9fPYsT5_A

I'm not up to current events with subs, but check these out:

http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2007/05/co-of-uss-helena-relieved-for-cause.html

http://makeyourdepth.blogspot.com/

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/virginia_2.html

As long as a sub can hide and wait for a CVBG to cross within, say, 5 NM to any side, a hidden sub can vertical launch or float into a vertical launch one or more missiles, mines, decoys or other devices as a ruse or means to disperse the fleet and weaken the shield/umbrella.

Sure, they'll face retaliation, but for any rogue/stateless assailants wanting to damage or merely startle a CVBG (which may or may not end up in the press), this might be something we see more of -- by state-funded, stateless actors.

(ignoring claims of indirect impact since I personally believe a lot of business "dirt" was un-swept from under the rug when CEOs were given the excuse)

From http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp/
"Immediate and Short Term Direct Impacts
The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion."

However, those car-related deaths you mention had very little direct impact to the economy.

Reaction to the "symbolism of the event"? Ha ha ha ha.

Some of the robots will/may be equipped with various types of sensors: low-light, acoustical, shape-recognition, infrared, etc. For any pirates backed by corrupt local governments (or, distant ones with much to lose if piracy is crimped), it'll be inevitable and logical that "seduction mines" (influence/proximity/remote-detonation) will disrupt operations. Either some of these jet-ski-like sentries will be blown up, or they'll be diverted/distracted since the operators won't want to needlessly lose them. Sure, N/V equipment can help detect mines, and some of the newer USN subs have advanced optics capabilities (See:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/virginia_2.html

for more information)

but things have a potential to get hairy if the pirates get their hands on IR gear so they can "tempt" the operator to drive the sentry along a threat axis (or around a cove/down a strait/a channel/etc) and detonate a string of mines.

Or, they can just dump flammables into the water and when the sentry slows down to do close-up looks, torch the thing. Hurling a flare or going the route of Joan of Arc with bows and arrows can give some stand-off distance between the flame-bath and the bad guys alongside/sidled up along the victim ship.

The Navy's been working on a system similar to this for years. However, where this system is for gaming, theirs is for pilots, Seals, etc (anyone who might need more info than they can look at). Its not in full use yet, but the website is http://www.namrl.navy.mil/accel/tsas/. Since everything but the homepage is broken, here's a brief rundown: normal vest, pneumatically activated vibrating bumps (about 30 sewn into the vest, each about the size of a dime), air pumps, controller. Program the controller to activate the pumps based on whatever input you want (ie, where is and how far away is the ground, where is the enemy). Each pump is tied to one bump (vibro-tactile actuator, if you want to get all nerdy). With the right controller setup, you can fly blind, land in a snowstorm, or lose sight of an enemy without losing awareness of where they are.

Many types of tear gas and non-lethal ballistics have been tested on our own people

Same with chemical weapons tested on US soldiers during the cold war. And with tests of nuclear weapons.I wonder what drugs they feed the US population that makes so many people forget these well-publicized events.

Found this list of asteroid names. Looks like anyone can get their name on a bit of rock if they want. Nice to see one called Zappafrank though.

Christ on a stick, both posters who replied are fucking stupid.

Internally, NTP uses UTC. Now, squeeze your eyes closed REAL TIGHT and wind those little brains into gear: when the NTP client receives a response from the NTP server and needs to set the time on your machine, how do you think it works out FROM THE UTC TIME, what the time is locally?

Go on, I'll wait. It's O.K. You can use a calculator or ask a grown up for help with this if you need to.

No? Oh don't cry, I'll tell you. The NTP client must consult the TZ database to know what your local UTC offset is! Oh my God, look at that, your TZ database and timezone must be accurate for NTP to work! Who'd have thought?!?!?!

Now gee, how could having an incorrect local clock possibly affect something like Kerberos? Well that's probably a bit advanced for this class. Maybe next year.

Until 15th August 1971, the US dollar was backed by gold. The US was fighting the Vietnam war and spent all the gold paying for the war. Nixon broke the link between the dollar and gold because they couldn't pay the bills in gold any more, they didn't have any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The dollar was then simply being printed, unbacked by anything. This increases the supply of dollars and the value falls massively. Huge inflation.

1972-3 Nixon or someone went to the Saudis and "persuaded" them somehow to remain only US dollars in return for oil. No idea what they promised, but it was big. From that point, the US dollar is pretty much backed by OPEC oil. It was denominated in dollars before, but the dollar had been backed by gold, so basically the oil price was based on gold. Not so after 1971.

So. All oil all over the world has to be bought in US dollars... The demand for US dollars (not gold) rockets, all the central banks across the world have to keep reserves on hand so the countries can buy oil. Billions of them. Trillions in total.

Do you see what this does? It does 2 things.

1: America gets paid first for any oil which other countries want to buy. They have to get the requisite number of dollars. And they get paid simply for running a printing press.

2: It allows the USA to print and spend as many dollars as they want to. The demand from outside the country means that inflation can't take off. The entire world is subsidising the US economy.

Now... 35 years later, there are trillions of US dollars out there sitting in central banks waiting to be spent on mostly oil. If oil were to be available in Euros, the dollars would be useless. They would come back to the USA.

Ask yourself what a million dollars would be worth if everyone had a million. ok, imagine what a trillion dollars or so would do coming back into the country. The value of the dollar would fall and as the value of the currency falls, the price of everything else increases.

As to the size of the effect... who knows.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.asp

See this link for a small American bomb http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/clmf/faeseq.html

Yeah, the Pacific is much more pleasant :-)

Actually, the US Naval Observatory, which maintains the official time for the US still has the voice announcer available over the phone. According to this page the numbers are
(202) 762-1401 and (202) 762-1069
for Washington DC and
(719) 567-6742
for the alternate master clock in Colorado Springs, CO.

Actually, the US Naval Observatory, which maintains the official time for the US still has the voice announcer available over the phone. According to this page the numbers are
(202) 762-1401 and (202) 762-1069
for Washington DC and
(719) 567-6742
for the alternate master clock in Colorado Springs, CO.

Purple rebar!

http://www.galvanizedrebar.com/cost_economics.htm
https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page?_pageid =181,4891269,181_4903600:181_4903642&_dad=portal&_ schema=PORTAL
http://www.kron.com/global/Story.asp?s=3943321

In 1945, following the defeat of Nazi Germany, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France assumed control over the territory of a defeated enemy. With the inability of the wartime allies to devise a plan to govern Germany at the conclusion of the war, the three western powers embarked upon a separate policy that resulted in the transformation of their zones of occupation into the Federal Republic of Germany. This was a great moment in the annals of American foreign policy. Because the occupation led to the creation of a successful democratic state, military victory produced substantial long-term political gains. Not only was a great scourge defeated, but the coordinated actions of the western powers gave birth to a new and powerful ally.http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/may03/middleEa st6.asp

Prewar Japan was an oppressive place, strongly nationalistic and militaristic. The press was censored, and ruthless secret police snuffed out dissent. A few business groups controlled most jobs. Women were subservient to their husbands and their sons as well. In 1946, using the U.S. Constitution as a blueprint, MacArthur and his aides wrote a new constitution for Japan. It outlawed war, abolished the secret police, liberalized education, and gave women the right to vote. Japan's voters approved the constitution in 1947 (and it is still in use today). Hirohito renounced his divinity and encouraged democracy, but was allowed to keep his throne. "With him as figurehead," MacArthur said, our job is so much more easy." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_11_ 135/ai_n18615415

It's a bit odd to call it a mere rumor when the Navy themselves have a website about the program. :) http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mam mals/index.html

I also recall news stories about dolphins used to clear mines from the Persian Gulf several years ago.

Ah, wikipedia to the rescue, lots of solid references listed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dolphins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Navy_Marine_Mamm al_Program

Actually the rumors about the Navy using trained dolphins aren't rumors at all: they are used for locating mines and swimmers, and the Navy has a FAQ on this: http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mam mals/NMMP_FAQ.html

You just made that site up!!

There is just no way a U.S. Navy department could come up with a cool and memorable phrase like Ocean In Motion for a section of their site.

But how did the hell did you get a .mil hosting service ?

Here's a simple explanation why ocean waves aren't a problem at deep levels:

Ocean Wave Motion

As depth increases, their effects slowly decrease until completely disappearing about half a wavelength below the surface.

And since it's anchored to the sea-bed, there's no danger if it being moved by tidal currents either.

" On 9 May 1941, three British destroyers, HMS Bulldog, HMS Broadway, and HMS Aubrietia, attacked U-110. When the German crew abandoned their damaged submarine, a boarding party from Bulldog got on board and recovered a working Enigma machine, its cipher keys, keybooks and other cryptological records. Although taken under tow by the British, U-110 flooded and sank about 100 hundred miles from Iceland. ,,, source: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq97-1.htm

Seems if there are more problems at the NHC...why the original poster didn't include these articles in the first place is beyond me.

Storm intensifies as forecasters want director removed
http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/159712.html

Pressure builds for storm chief
http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/158757.html

Actual QuikSCAT data
http://manati.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/quikscat/
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat-bin/scatt_winds.cgi

Currently, a measurement accuracy of one part in 10^7 is possible

Googled it and got Time Voice Announcer at U.S. Naval Observatory:

http://www.usno.navy.mil/telephone.shtml/

For the love of God, it won't stop!

You haven't loathed PowerPoint until you have been forced to sit through a briefing by these guys. I think the briefs have all been removed from their site to prevent the US from violating anti-terrorism and/or torture treaties. Google may have a few of them cached if someone is masochistic enough.

A disclaimer: I speak from experience on this. I have worked in IT for and around the military since 1993, and in other capacities since 1984. I'm posting anonymously because...well, I just don't want to raise any hackles.

That being said, the first question I have is why Wired is posting the PDF document to begin with. The words "For Official Use Only" are printed all over it for a reason. Yes, it's not highly classified (Secret or above), but FOUO documents are not supposed to be generally releasable to the public. (There's a pretty good explanation of FOUO here...please note there isn't any guidance on what conditions one may publish on Wired's web site). I have to wonder how the folks at Wired would feel is personal information about them held by the government was determined to be OK to publish on some web site somewhere. I believe the din about privacy would be deafening. Even more curious is the interview with Major Ceralde, to which the sensitive document is linked...right above where Major Ceralde states the reason why the document is protected on an Army intranet. I wonder if the major was aware that the discussion he had with the magazine would be accompanied by the very document is stresses needed to be protected. I would be pissed.

There isn't anything significant that regulation that wasn't there already. Military personnel and civilians have a responsibility to protect information, and there is nothing in this document that adds to that in any significant way. I believe the issue of "family members" posting "letters" on "blogs" needs a more careful re-reading.

The policy isn't stating that Army personnel and/or their families can't post anything on the internet. The policy clearly states (if your carefully read Chapter 2) that it's the responsibility of anyone connected with the Army to know what information is critical and sensitive, and that protecting that information is a requirement. Common sense would tell you that if a soldier stationed in Iraq writes a letter home to his wife describing his recent mission, that his correspondence might contain sensitive information -- plans, movements, logistics -- that would be useful to an adversary, even something mentioned in the most benign manner.

Common sense would also, hopefully, point out to that spouse that publishing that letter on her blog under the heading "I heard from Charlie today!" would violate the general sense of protection. Most military spouses are smart enough to know this. What I would question is the act of a soldier sending home mail that contained information of any sensitive nature (especially e-mail). This would indicated a lack of leadership (or a lack of paying attention to what he's told), since the critical requirement to protect information is battered into the heads of everyone in the DOD on a daily basis.

I'm pretty certain this policy doesn't extend to that soldier's wife getting into some blog's discussion thread on child care, general medical service for military families or the hassles of moving from one post to another.

I happen to work (as a contractor) in a facility managed by the Army. The mission of this organization is critical to the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. I can say, without reservation, that the exposure of any information generated by this organization would result in severe damage to the mission and the people who carry it out. There is an enemy out there who would benefit greatly from even the smallest bit of news emanating from this organization. The results could mean death to many people. Operational security isn't taken for granted there; it is a mantra. There isn't a thing I do during the course of the day that isn't directly affected by the necessity to protect everything from those who shouldn't be seeing it. This can be a hassle in some ways, but it goes with the territory.

The plain fact is that thi

The ISS is moving at 7.726 km/s (I checked this morning - I'm running Orbitron to track a different satellite.) 26.2 miles converts to 42.165 km, so she should traverse the course length in about 5.5 seconds.

How many steps does it take to complete a marathon from low earth orbit? A one ... a two ... a three. Three.

Grr, posted the wrong link for alane before. :P

Linux isn't a magic security wand. Its just that its been audited by more people that microsoft ever can be. It has a proven (by external audits, funded by the office of homeland security) to have far fewer software flaws then comparable commercial software (by a factor of about 8:1). To say 'oh its too expensive' is just BS. That argument fell flat several years ago. Its just bullshit! There is a one time migration cost. The one time cost is recovered in less than 1 year. After that, 2/3 of the cost is saved every year after the one-time expense (every year). So there are two options to the 'sticking with microsoft' story: He's either an idiot, or he's paid-off (possibly both). There is no equivalent to security enhanced Linux in the world of microsoft, neither is there an equivalent to Fort Knox for Linux ...note that one of the sponsors is the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command San Diego!

Navy: Moonrise Calculator:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.htm l

Red Moonrise. Ain't it cool?

Do you have any links as to what software it uses. The 'half-assed programmer' should have allowed for crossing the IDL. That's what you should do if you are designing a navigation system.

F-22 Raptor swallows pilot

For the record, I am none of these Paul Joneses either:
http://www.cherryred.co.uk/rpm/artists/pauljones.h tm
http://www.pauljones.org/
http://www.midatlanticwrestling.net/Resource_Cente r/interviews/jones/pauljones.htm
http://www.fatpossum.com/artists/jones.html
http://www.led-zeppelin.com/EMJPJ.html
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/traditions/htm l/jpjones.html

I am however one of these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jones
You can guess which one.

You could just as easily use Kerberos to encrypt HTTP traffic as SSL

Erm, isn't Kerberos an authentication protocol?
from the FAQ at

All it does for telnet is take care of authenticating the users, the rest of the session is still plaintext but the login + pass aren't sent in the clear.

From
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/CCS/people/kenh/kerber os-faq.html#kerbsupport

"The next level of Kerberos support is a "true" Kerberized application that uses Kerberos tickets to verify identity and/or encrypt data. ... Unfortunately, relatively few applications support Kerberos to this degree."

you're right - let's slashdot the heck out of it so the military can't get to the website, 'cause as soon as some goofball in the military gets an idea about using "robots" as killing machines- whoa!

  Fortunately, this hasn't occurred to anyone but you.... yet.

What if the NSA pointed one of their old drifting recon birds the wrong way and refocused it a few million light years from here?

I realize the optics aren't set up to do far-field imaging, but maybe it'd be cheaper and quicker than waiting to fix the Hubble?

An intriguing idea. However, I don't think it will work. The focus would not be the major issue though, as the difference in focussing between 500km and 500pc is relatively minor.

I suspect the main issue would be noise. Hubble's CCDs were specifically designed to have the lowest possible noise, whereas in the case of an NSA satellite, they have so much more signal from Earth (>1000x) than from the next dimmest thing in the solar system that the system might not be physically capable of taking the necessary long exposures. However, they might be able to do some sort of astronomy with a series of stacked images, much as is done with web cam astronomy. Anyway, just some thoughts... there are probably other reasons it hasn't been done yet that I haven't thought of yet....

Your link doesn't seem to work, so try this one:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq107.htm
which sort of substantiates your statement, at least in the final paragraph. Other paragraphs could make the version I heard appear reasonable.

I'm not sure how much to trust "official history" to not "clean up" the history of their employers. (Or of a cause that they are devoted to. See Haigiography.) I know that I've occasionally caught official history cleaning up the history of things that happened only a decade or less ago, so why should they be trusted for a longer period, when there's less chance that they'll be called out?

Anyway, as I said, I'm not certain that the version that I posted is correct. It appears a bit too colorful. But I also don't trust the official historians to not bowdlerize history. (Look it up. It doesn't mean putting skirts on piano legs...it's only related.)

See page 7 of http://www.onr.navy.mil/about/conferences/rd_partn er/2006/04thursday/dandrea_inp_track.ppt

"Unlike a Tomahawk, it's unlikely you can install a GPS receiver in the "bullet" because of the high launch g-forces, so using terminal guidance is probably out."

The projectile that is fired DOES use GPS guidance. Look at slide 3 from this presentation from the Office of Naval Research.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/about/conferences/rd_partn er/2006/04thursday/dandrea_inp_track.ppt

Forget about the legalities. They simply can't go round blowing up satellites.

One very good reason for countries not to go around shooting up satellites is that it would very soon render orbital space useless for everyone.

To quote this article

"...Even if an active ASAT system exists, satellite systems typically involve whole constellations of units in orbit; shooting down enough satellites to cripple a system becomes difficult. If one were to shoot down all the low-Earth-orbit imagery satellites a company was using to survey one's territory, the resulting debris might interfere with or damage other satellites in similar orbits. An entire orbital plane could be temporarily made useless not only to potentially hostile systems but also to friendly ones...".

...and this is coming from the guys who like shooting stuff, talk to any peaceniks our there and they would more likely to use the word indefinitely than temporarily.

If any sanity were to prevail here, they would need to work out a way of disabling satellites without creating debris.... tricky considering their electronics are heavily shielded to withstand the extreme conditions you normally find in space.

Perhaps a better solution would be for the coalition forces to place their troops somewhere where Iraqi insurgents can't attack them.... say in the US for example, or England.

By the way, the worst job search page ever created.

Who says I won't have a flag? I'll run it up when I need repairs.

You're not quite grasping the concept here. It's not whether or not you are literally flying a flag. You are not required to actually hoist a flag at any time, as far as I know, although it's a damn good idea if there's a naval war anywhere near you and you are from a neutral country. You are required to have a flag painted on your hull for many countries, though, and the laws of war require it for warships.

It's whether or not your ship is registered with a country's ship registry. If it is registered, you are under their law, and they control, legally, what happens on your ship, and other nations cannot mess with you in international waters.(1) Now, as they have no representative there, obviously their rules might not mean much, but neither do countries station policemen in private residences, yet the law applies there too. They can require you to, for example, shut down the gambling operation you are operating, or turn over the servers to them, or execute search warrants on you. (In fact, they can board your board sans a 'warrant' in most countries.)

If you refuse to bring your ship in, or decide their rules don't apply to you, or just don't register in the first place, you will be where I was talking about when I said 'sailing under no flag'...you will be an outlaw ship, subject to the jurisdiction of anyone who wants to fuck with you, at least in international waters. And they will fuck with you. There's an international organization that tracks ships sightings of ships like that, and you will be reported to some appropriately strong navy and dealt with.

Notice the second ships 'crime' was apparently just having some RPGs laying around, they were not observed or reported committing piracy. But they were in international waters and they weren't flying under a flag, and having an RPG is not only a violation of international shipping laws but a damn good indication of piracy, so the US Navy captured the boat, as it is legally allowed to do.

Um, did you read the article about Sealand? That's exactly what the British Navy did.

Sealand is not, under any legal theory, 'a ship', and thus does not need to be, and legally cannot, be registered as a ship.(2) Lifeboats don't even count as 'ships', Sealand certainly doesn't. Sealand is an island that either is part of England or is its own country, and the fact it 'repelled' an invasion by either foreign invaders or the legitimate government is not really relevant to international marine law.

Sealand does lie in an interesting legal area, and England certainly hasn't decided, legally, where it is. (And England's, really, the only one that matters.) But that doesn't have anything to do with operating an unflagged ship.

1) Not just international waters. There is a legal right of free passage through the open seas and thus if you're, for example, sailing from England to Portugal, Spain can't stop you from cutting across their territorial waters, as long as you do not attempt to land and you follow at least some basic right-of-way rules.

2) To be a ship you actually have to be able to cross ocean distances, or at least to international waters, so at minimum that's three miles. (Some countries claim that short a distance.) A vessel that cannot move that distance is not a ship. Sealand cannot, in fact, move at all. QED. (This footnote is just in case anyone wanted to quibble over the definition of 'ship'.) Legally, it's probably not a 'boat' either, but just in case it should arbitrarily define a port and bow and put lights up. ;)

Look up the table at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html to see that the moon was full on Nov 5, two days before the sightings, and that the weather was variable with ground temps that could indicate thermals-- just before sunset was when the observations came in.

If you have a link for a source that disagrees I'd be interested to see what they have to say.

Are you sure that you haven't confused him with some other, slightly younger politician?

As for LBJ, there's a story about him as a young congresscritter riding on a military plane somewhere in the Pacific during WWII and winding up with a medal that probably was only awarded because of his political status rather than anything he actually did when the plane had whatever problem it did (it's been a while since I heard about this and I don't remember the details). This wouldn't particularly surprise me.

Far be it from me to say anything nice about a Republican, but I'd take Ford (or LBJ for that matter) over the current deciderator in chief in a quinstant. Come to think of it, I'd sooner roll the dice on some stranger off the street instead of King George the 43rd.

Still is:

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sandiego/technology/mam mals/

Grace Hopper is ranked Rear Admiral Grace Hopper in the US Navy; the guided missile destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) is named after her.

http://www.hopper.navy.mil/Page.htm

Ben