Thursday, January 14, 2010

Magic Numbers

If you do not like the numbers make up some new ones.

This article will probably get buried so read it here from the Star Tribune.


WASHINGTON - The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.
Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.
That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.
The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House's latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.
Numbers published later identified more than 640,000 jobs linked to stimulus projects around the country. The White House said the public could have confidence in those new numbers, which officials argued proved the administration was on track to keep Obama's promise that the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.
But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts, from the substantive to the clerical. Republicans have used those flaws to attack what so far is the signature domestic policy approved during Obama's presidency.

The new rules are intended to streamline the process, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget. They came in response to grant recipients who complained the reporting was too complicated, from lawmakers who complained the job counts were inconsistent and from watchdog groups who complained the information was unreliable, Gavin said.
"We're trying to make this as consistent and as uniform as we possibly can," he said.
The new stimulus job reports will continue to offer details about jobs and projects. But they were never expected to be the public accounting of Obama's goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs, Gavin said.
The quarterly job reports posted on the Web site for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board reflect only a fraction of the jobs created under the program and can't account for job creation stemming from other stimulus programs such as tax rebates and other federal aid, the spokesman said.
One scenario could see job counts on some projects decrease from the number that would have been reported under the old rules, if saved full-time jobs are converted into partial jobs under the new reporting rules. But other job counts for projects likely will increase, with recipients now required to add jobs under new rules that previously weren't counted because they were not in jeopardy.
The changes are in line with Government Accountability Office recommendations and "should reduce the debate around these figures," said Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office.
But the result of the new rules will be that future claims of job creation from the stimulus will be even more misleading, said Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act's impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to produce sustainable economic growth or real job creation," Issa said in a letter sent last week to the government board monitoring stimulus spending.

Recipients of recovery money no longer have to show that a job would have been lost without the stimulus help, and they no longer are required to keep an ongoing tally of jobs saved or created. The new rules allow stimulus recipients to limit the job tally to quarterly reports, making it impossible to avoid double-counting a job that was created in one quarter and continued into the next.
Issa wants the Recovery Board, the government's independent oversight panel, to change how it identifies the count of stimulus jobs and to add a note on its Recovery.gov Web site explaining that there is now a different definition for what constitutes a job under the stimulus.

Monday, January 4, 2010

NC Star Mark III Review

Up for review this month is the NC Star Mark III Tactical Scope. I got this from Midway with a coupon for about $115. I was kind of apprehensive about this purchase as I had read a couple of not so hot reviews and I am usually of the mind that you get what you pay for.

Anyhow this is a 3 to 9 variable power scope with illuminated mildot reticules. It comes with an integrated quick release weaver style mount. My intention was to put this scope one of my flat top ARs.




The package from Midway was packaged adequately as usual and I pulled the scope box out to take a look. The box packaging looked decent and I did not see any damage to the box.






 The end of the box shows the 3-9X with a 42mm objective. the actual model number is STM3942G.






I carefully removed the scope from the box and checked it out. One of the reasons that I picked this one is that it has the built in bullet drop compensator that is calibrated for 223. It is actually calibrated for a 55gr M193 round and I usually shoot 69 or 75 gr. Supposedly you sight it in for 100 yds and then you can adjust the compensator out to 500 yds. I never actually got that far with it.




Some of the negative reviews I read indicated that the mount did not hold onto the rail very well and would come loose. I followed the instructions and mounted mine, then put a drop of loctite on the locking screw.
I do not forsee this thing coming loose and after 200 rds it has not budged at all. Here is a shot if it mounted on my AR.




Here is another shot zoomed out a little bit with the included dust covers on.








Now I have never had a scope with illuminated reticules before so I wanted to try this out. Supposedly the illumination will help in low light situations. However I found that even on the dimmest settings the illumination destroyed my night vision and I could barely see anything well enough to shoot it. Here is a shot from the aft end of the scope at night.
It is a little out of focus but you can get the idea, it is very bright and that is lowest setting.


The view was only a little better with the green light. Again it is a little out of focus but you get the point I hope.








Alright enough of the fancy stuff how well does it shoot? I was not expecting great clarity out of a scope this price but at 100yds and with the scope at maximum magnification 9x, I could make out most ( not all ) of the 22 cal holes. Not that bad I suppose. I went through 200rds of 55gr ball ammo that I got on sale back before the election of 08. Not the most accurate stuff in the world but it puts holes in the paper. As I was shooting something seemed strange and I was not sure what was going on. So I opened up the bipod and set up the bench to make myself  nice and stable. I got the rifle sighted in so that I could put my shots into a group the size of a quarter at 100yds with the scope at  9x.


Then I loaded up the magazine hunkered down and put 6 shots into the center of the target. I then carefully moved the power from 9x to 8x and took 3 more shots. Then moved the power to 7x and took 3 more shots. I continued this at 6x, 5x, 4x, and finally 3x. You can see the results to the right. With each change in power the point of impact changed. After 5x I was no longer even on the paper. At this point I was kind of disgusted and it was starting to get late so I called it a day.


I don't know about you but the point of impact should not be moving when I change the magnification level. I could accept a little bit of a change but to be off the paper is unacceptable. There is supposed to be a lifetime warranty from NCStar on these. At this point I am glad I bought this with my American Express as I can definitely get my money back. I am undecided if I should deal with trying to get warranty replacement or just return it. At this juncture in time I cannot recommend one of these scopes. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

CSS Hell

Cascading Style Sheets can be very powerful tools. However debugging them when things do not go according to plan can be a real pain.

I decided to try my hand at a little Drupal theming and I am off to a rocky start. Some of the important files are:


  • themename.info — A required file that is new to Drupal 6 which provides information about the theme.
  • page.tpl.php — The main template that defines the content on most of the page.
  • style.css — The CSS file that sets the CSS rules for the template.
  • node.tpl.php — This file defines the content of the nodes.
  • block.tpl.php — Defines the content of the blocks.
  • comment.tpl.php — Defines the content of the comments.
  • logo.png — Your logo, if you are using one.
  • screenshot.png — This is a screenshot of your theme that is used in the admin panel and in the user account settings if you have enabled more than one theme so that visitors can choose which theme they want to use.
  • box.tpl.php — puts a box around things like comments.


How to make a Drupal theme
.

Scientific Method

Scientists should use the scientific method and publish all of the source data and methods. It is not science if it is not reproducible.

I love this quote:

University research is the closest thing to legalized prostitution that exists in this country today. Scare the crap out of enough Congresscritters and you’ve got funding for your research group to last your entire career, data be damned.


Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline


Climate Model Hoaxing for Dummies

Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Climate Comedy

As someone who writes code for a living and a hobby I was interested in the source code downloaded from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The comments in the code make for enlightening reading. The HARRY_READ_ME.txt contained some nice comments about the quality of the code and was summed up nicely by one of the commenters.

Simplified code for CRU to use (from an average programmer with no climatology expertise):

For intYear = 1400 to 2009;
floatGlobalMeanTemerature = floatGlobalMeanTemperature + WHATEVER_THE_HELL_YOU_WANT_IT_TO_BE;
intYear++
next

Print “Holy Crap! We’re all going to die!”


After reading through some of the comments and code it is entirely clear that all of the data has been manipulated to fit an agenda.



Wattsupwiththat has some more in depth coverage of some of the code comments.

For your viewing pleasure.



Even John Stewart gets it.

My favorite Comment.
Poor Al Gore, Global warming debunked by the very Internet he invented.


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Friday, November 20, 2009

Climate Collusion


In one of the last episodes we saw that some climate "scientists" selectively chose samples that supported their theory and ignored those that did not. Additionally the way the data was calculated was found to be flawed. Flawed is a nice way to put it.

Now we are seeing that many scientists have colluded to manipulate data to enforce their flawed theories. E-mail messages between high-ranking scientists appear to indicate a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists to falsify temperature data in order to exaggerate global averages.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Beta Master Chrony Review

I have been reloading for a long time but it was usually just to save money for target practice, so I usually just used the starting load in many of the books. Sometimes I would modify a few things to see what would happen but for the most part if went boom when I pulled the trigger it was good.

For a number of reasons I wanted to collect some data on how my reloads were performing, so I decided to buy a chronograph. I was doing a lot of research on what kind to buy and I was leaning towards a particular model when I received an email from Midway and the Shooting Chrony Beta Master was on sale for $99!. The one I was considering was quite a bit more and that was why I was hesitating. For $99 I went for it.

Shooting Chrony has quite a number of different models available. The three main models are the Alpha, Beta, and the Gamma. The biggest difference between the three is the amount of memory for storing velocity readings. Each of the three models are available in the base model and the Master model. The base model has the LCD screen on the unit and the Master model comes with a remote control that housed the LCD screen and about 15 ft of phone cable to connect the remote to the main unit.



On opening up the box I was amazed at how small the box was. I had imagined that it would be larger but apparently that is one of the selling points of the chrony. It folds up into a small package.







As I mentioned earlier I opted for the Beta Master. This means that I have room for storing the velocities of 60 shots divided into six strings of 2 to 10 shots each.








I opened up the box to see what was inside. The obligatory instructions, the chrony itself, the multi-part diffusers, and the support rods.







I unfolded the Chrony to take a look at the inside. You can see the remote unit and the phone cord rolled up nice and neat. I was not able to get the cable and remote rolled up tight enough to fit back in there once I took it out. You can also see the two sensors that detect the bullet passing over them.





Here you can see the remote unit and the phone cable pulled out. For normal use the battery is plugged into the main housing. But you can take the remote unit and plug in the battery and read off you velocities at home without having to hook everything up.




In this closeup of the remote unit I have plugged in the battery and turned it on. It is displaying BE for Beta. Once it has passed its power on test it displays the BE and it is ready for business.





To test the chrony I set it up on a camera tripod so that it was level with the rifle rest on the shooting bench and the center of the two sensors was 10 ft away from where I was shooting. The instructions stated that 10ft away should be far enough away to avoid issues with the muzzle blast causing erroneous readings. I plugged in the remote unit and set it on the shooting bench and prepared to have some fun. For these tests the temperature was 48 degrees Fahrenheit and it was overcast.


Due to the fact that I only have one chronograph I could not directly compare reading between two different models. I figured the next best thing to test the accuracy of the chronograph was to use some factory ammunition for which I had published velocity information available. I also had some reloads that I wanted to try out along with the factory ammunition.


In order to familiarize myself with the operation of the chrony and make sure that I could shoot with out hitting it I decided to start with my Kimber 82G .22 rifle first. This rifle has a 25" barrel and I was firing .22 long rifle that I purchased from the CMP. Supposedly the CMP currently gets its 22 ammo from Aquila and what I am using is Golden Eagle Target with a velocity of 1100fps out of a 20" barrel. I fired my first shot and the chrony displayed the velocity of 1301fps. A little high but I fired nine more for the following results.

Kimber 82G
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 1262 fps
Standard Deviation: 27.4 fps


Now 1262fps is a little over the published velocity of 1100fps but my barrel is 5 inches longer than the test barrel. These velocities are comparable to what this guy in the CMP forums is getting with this ammo. I have also read that a standard deviation of 30 is normal for factory ammunition.

Next I tried the same ammo out of my Ruger 22/45 with a 4.5" barrel and we see that the velocities are quite different out of the shorter barrel.

Ruger 22/45
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 979 fps
Standard Deviation: 29.5 fps



I then wanted to try some 223 out of my AR15 that I recently put together. For the first string of shots I fired 10 rounds of M193. If I read the specification correctly M193 should have a velocity of 3250fps out of a 20" barrel.

AR15 18" Barrel
M193 55gr
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 3213 fps
Standard Deviation: 32.7 fps

Not bad at all. 10 rounds with an average velocity of 3213 fps.

The next string is some Bulk Black Hills 223 that I got on sale back before the 2008 election. It is rated at 3200fps.

AR15 18" Barrel
Black Hill 55gr
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 2983 fps
Standard Deviation: 34.9 fps

Looks like the Black Hills stuff is a little slower than advertised.

For a twist I have some Prvi Partizan 75gr Match ammo that is advertised as 830m/s. Converting that to fps by multiplying by 3.28 yields a velocity of 2722fps.

AR15 18" Barrel
Prvi PPU 75gr Match
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 2584 fps
Standard Deviation: 15.3 fps

Again my readings are a bit lower than advertised although I am firing these shots out of a barrel that is 2 inches shorter than the test barrels.

Time to move up in the caliber world. I am going to fire some surplus HXP M2 ball out of my Garand. The M2 ball is supposed to be 2805fps. I am only going to fire 8 shot strings out of the Garand.

M1 Garand
HXP
8 Shots
Mean Velocity: 2810 fps
Standard Deviation: 23.9 fps

That is looking pretty good.


Now for the first of my reloads. I have a 168gr Sierra Match King over 44gr of IMR 4895. This should be a little on the light side of a full power load but this is one of the reasons I wanted a chronograph.

M1 Garand
168gr SMK 44gr IMR 4895
8 Shots
Mean Velocity: 2549 fps
Standard Deviation: 21.3 fps

The velocities are higher than I expected but I am pleased with the results.

Now for another rifle that prompted me to buy a chronograph. My 1899 Krag Carbine is over 110 years old now and I do not want to push the envelope on this one. These loads are 220gr Round Nose on top of 40grs of H4350.

30-40 Krag
220gr RN 40gr H4350
5 Shots
Mean Velocity: 1830 fps
Standard Deviation: 21.7 fps


I also wanted to test my 9mm and see how the velocities compared. The first ten shots are Federal HST 124gr and should have a velocity of 1150fps out of a 4" barrel. Today I am using a M&P9C that has a 3.5" barrel.

S&W M&P9C
Federal HST 124
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 1083 fps
Standard Deviation: 23.2 fps

The velocity is pretty close.

While I was at it I tried a string of Federal HST+P 124gr that should have a velocity of 1200fps.

S&W M&P9C
Federal HST 124+P
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 1164 fps
Standard Deviation: 7.7 fps


For comparison I shot some factory Federal American Eagle that should have a velocity of 1150 fps.

S&W M&P9C
Federal American Eagle 124
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 1053 fps
Standard Deviation: 20.7 fps

That was lower than I expected but this is the "value" ammo from Federal.

Now I want to try one of my pet reloads for the 9mm. I like to use 4.0 grs of Titegroup under a 124gr FMJ. This should make power factor for IDPA and it is a nice shooting round that won't kill my hand after shooting a few hundred rounds.

S&W M&P9C
124gr FMJ 4.0gr Titegroup
10 Shots
Mean Velocity: 983 fps
Standard Deviation: 11.8 fps


Out of my 3.5" barrel M&P9C my reload is making 983fps. I need to reach 1009fps to meet the Power Factor for IDPA. Since the rules call for measuring the velocity out of the longest legal barrel allowable, I think that these reloads will reach 1009fps in a 5" barrel but I will have to test and make sure.

Most chronographs work by sensing a disturbance in the amount of light entering the sensors. Since it was overcast the day I did the testing the light was rather diffuse and I did not use the diffusers. On a sunny day or if there are partial clouds the amount of light entering the sensors can change and cause erroneous readings. The diffusers are there to help eliminate the problems caused by erratic lighting. I have even seen some people put a white piece of poster board of cardboard over top of the entire chronograph so that only reflected light gets to the sensors instead of direct light.

Overall I am rather pleased with the Shooting Chrony Beta Master. If I had to pick one thing to complain about is that to get the velocity statistics out of the unit you have to press a combination of buttons that is just not intuitive at all. I ended up entering all of the velocities into a spreadsheet and calculating the results there. I understand that they probably used less buttons to keep the costs down but the menu system was kind of convoluted.

I am going to continue using the chrony and see what some of my other firearms and loads can do. I would like to get out to the range with some one that has a different chronograph ans set the two of them up serially. Then fire through both at the same time and compare velocity readings to see if they both read the same or if there are differences.