Work is about to begin near Fromelles France to exhume approximately 400 Australian and British World War One soldiers thought to be buried in a mass grave.
The stories of the soldiers are as touching and as fascinating yas you might expect. The research done by Lambis Englezos is deserving of an OBE in my view. The technology in use is also interesting and of course DNA investigations form the corner stone of this project. But here's where I become a little concerned.
"We don't even know if it is going to work yet," Peter Jones, a British DNA consultant to the project, said yesterday.
"If the DNA is there and in good condition, then you get profiles from all of the samples from the grave. But I don't think you are going to get that.
So despite the fact they are going to exhume these dead soldiers, there are concerns that it ight be for nothing. Not only are they uncertain about the DNA validity, but they are short on for decendants willing to offer their DNA:
...fewer than 15 British families have registered to take part in the project and an 11th-hour public campaign has now been launched in Britain to try to ignite interest in the Fromelles discovery, coax potential relatives to register and increase the chances of individual identification.
THis may be due to a less than ideal PR/advertising campaign, but I's like tohttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5856979 suggest that some descendants hold the same view that I do- that we ought to leave the dead as they were. These are a mix of young men from Britain and Australia. They went to war as volunteers, fought side by side and died together. In the fields of Fromelles they have lain side by side for 90+ years and it is my view there they should remain. While I am always interested in this sort of forensic work, I wonder if this isn't possibly desecration. There may be a prevailing view that these men deserve a proper burial, but I'm of the view they have already received one:
The Germans, to their credit, gathered the dead and buried them in mass graves under the shadow of Fromelles’s church. Before they did so, they removed the identification tags, recorded the names of the dead and sent the tags back to Australia.
I'm gobsmacked. If they do what they promise, they've actually got it right, and we might just turn into a broadband front-runner country ten years from now... after all.
I've also supported the idea of the Federal Government building national broadband infrastructure. I'm not sure about the plan to sell it off again as I think a corporation owned by the government with subscription based billing to the telcos could not only sustain itself, but also account for future upgrades as well. Let's face it, the network we build today will not be the same one we are using in 50 years. We'll need to revisit this time and time again. Or we can set ourselves up for the longer term.
Leslie is subject to disciplinary action not because he Twittered as the Fake Stephen Conroy, but because of his ongoing unauthorised public statements about Telstra, including abusive comments towards a colleague.
Telstra, better than Canadian Mounties. They always get there man. Anyway they can.
Bush fires: What could we have done to warn people?
In the haze and confusion that has followed the most horrific natural disaster in our history, it's become apparent that the scope of information (or lack thereof) and the speedy dissemination of said information to residents in the firing line was not effective.
The government has authorised a royal commission, but the time that will take and then instituting the findings will take some time.
I'm going to float an idea right now: Unmanned drones. They are an effective and low-risk method of monitoring this sort of natural disaster. They can carry a huge amount of equipment for surveillance and can be part of a technology chain that could be far more effective at sending out information live from the fire to command and then onward to people affected via sirens, the web, radio, SMS and automated land line calls.
The logical choice of drone would be the MQ-9 Predator. Not only has it been a highly successful military aircraft, used extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it also has form insofar as monitoring fires.
In November 2006, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center obtained an MQ-9 from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.. The aircraft has been named Ikhana and its main goal is the Suborbital Science Program within the Science Mission Directorate. NASA also acquired a ground control station in a mobile trailer. This aircraft was used extensively to survey the Southern California wildfires in 2007. The data was used to deploy firefighters to areas of the highest need.
And, despite being built ostensibly for global warming research, it worked a treat:
It was surprisingly successful: Ikhana found a hot spot at the bottom of a canyon just east of the town where fire crews hadn't expected any problems. With the data, fire fighters were able to re-deploy to block the hot spot from spreading towards the Sierra town of Paradise. They immediately evacuated 10,000 people and successfully kept the fire from overtaking the town.
"Firefighters are blinded by the smoke of a fire, but they need to know where the hottest parts of a fire are burning, and any little hot spots that are out in front," said Vincent Ambrosia, NASA Ames Research Center's principal investigator for the fire mission. "Most temperature sensors are calibrated to sense low-temperature sources; for instance, the military wants to use UAVs to sense a person walking across a field at night. But that kind of sensor doesn't work well for high-temperature sources.
"By calibrating our thermal sensors for high temperatures, we can tell whether a given area is actively flaming or just extremely hot ash—a 'boot melter'—because you don't want to send in firefighters if it's going to melt their boots."
Yes, there are manned aircraft with this sort of sensor equipment available. But a drone is a better choice- for starters, there's the time it can spend "on station". Wikipedia:
"The MQ-9 is fitted with six stores pylons. The inner stores pylons can carry a maximum of 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms) each, and are "wet" to allow carriage of external fuel tanks. The midwing stores pylons can carry a maximum of 600 pounds (270 kilograms) each, while the outer stores pylons can carry a maximum of 200 pounds (90 kilograms) each. An MQ-9 with two 1,000 pound (450 kilogram) external fuel tanks and a thousand pounds of munitions has an endurance of 42 hours."
This would mean that a could have gone on station at 9am on Saturday the 8th and stayed until late Sunday night. A refuel at Essendon airport approximately 50 kms from Kinglake by air and it would be back for another 40+ hours. (Also note that if you have purpose built fire "eye in the sky" for non military use, you free up another 450kgs/1000lbs for equipment or even more fuel.)
One of the arguments against drones is safety of existing air traffic. That's only an issue for the MQ-9 when ascending and descending. The rest of the time, it's too high:
From an altitude of 43,000 feet, the wildfire sensor collected and sent 100 images and more than 20 data files containing the location of the fire perimeter over a 16-hour period on Oct. 28 and 29. The data were delivered in real time through a satellite communications link. NASA and Forest Service specialists worked to familiarize the fire management team with accessing capabilities and sensor data format. The data from the NASA system were used by the Esperanza Fire Incident Command Center to map fire behavior and direct resources to critical areas on the fire.
Australian already has these drones in use for illegal fishing detection. So we have trained staff and pilots who can fly and support these aircraft. Further, use by the military of these drones in a domestic crisis is not only great PR, it's ideal for training under real pressure. Illegal fishing might be a worthy reason to have drones, but is it more important than saving lives?
I emailed Wired's "Danger Room" blogger Noah Schachtman to ask his thoughts on drones used in fire fighting. Here's what I sentt:
The number one problem was detection and information flow. In Oz we either leave early or stay to fight. Many early-leavers left too late and were killed in their cars as they did not know the extent of the problem or proximity if the fires.
The government has set up a commission of enquiry. I would like to ask your users what they think- from a tech view- could be used to assist in detection and rapid dissemination of information.
Would unmanned drones built specifically for fire detection be the way forward? On the day in question, we knew we were in for trouble- record drought combined with 120f day and 60mph winds. Could we have launched drones into the danger areas to track fires? (I might add that the most deadly fires were seemingly deliberately lit).
Over to you!
His reply:
I know that NASA has used some drones to fight wildfires. They haven't been more widely-deployed here because of the Federal Aviation Administration's worry about them flying in the same skies as manned planes.
But drones are successfully being used to find everything from smugglers to bomb-planters. Why not fires (or fire-starters) too?
The last point is interesting. If drones can be up in the air scanning for fires, then early detection is possible and even identification and footage of the firebug is possible as well. Not only that but surely there would be a deterrent factor at work as well...?
The costs are a little up in the air as the predator and reaper UAVs are "systems"- typically deployed as 4 aircraft with all relevant support systems. That can get very expensive. But if simply added to our existing UAV program, the costs would be significantly lower.
Technology has a lot to offer in these circumstances and it seems that we are still relying on old systems (like the bush telegraph) when the technology already exists to significantly reduce the risks to people in fire affected areas.
A P-PLATER who hit speeds of 255km/h in a high performance rally car during a police chase from NSW to Melbourne has been jailed for three months.
It's pretty clear this guy is not a complete genius; anyone who speeds on the Hume is looking for trouble- with the cops, a truck, a tree etc.
In the TV news, they went to lengths to point out the car was the oh-so-fast Subaru WRX STi, a rare and wonderful car in the right hands at the right time.
...just not in this guy's hands. His defense went a little like this:
Defence lawyer Stan Waites said Pickering was developmentally delayed, and his parents had gone through great anguish to make him recognise he had a problem.
Questions: 1/ WTF is "developmentally delayed"? Late bloomer? Total moron? Immature? Mentally retarded? 2/ How does a "Developmentally delayed" guy afford a $70,000 car? 3/ If he can't afford it, did his mum and dad buy it, thereby reducing their "great anguish" factor? 4/ Can people who are "developmentally delayed" get a license nowadays?
So here's what he got:
Magistrate Robert Kumar sentenced him to nine months jail, but suspended six months. He cancelled Pickering's license for five years, and fined him $2000.
In my mind, the jail sentence is appropriate as he has many car related offence priors (he has lost his license in multiple states) and the risks he took with other people's lives mean a custodial sentence is correct.
The $2000 fine is neither here nor there.
The license suspension for five years is woefully inadequate. If his defense has said he effectively has a mental issue that makes him an ongoing menace behind the wheel, then cancelling his license and banning him from driving for life is the only way forward.
I do not understand why we leave the door open for people to drive again. If he had a gun license and was firing bullets in the air recklessly, we would take the guns away for life. There would not be a suspension; "Are you ready to stop firing in the air randomly? Oh? You ARE? Good then, here they are!". We would just say "that's it bubba, you have blown your gun license"
But this guy could be driving again in five years, and frankly I do not want to share a city with him.
THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams is right. Why not have a "smorgasbord" of laws. In our enlightened multicultural society we need to be "sensitive", "tolerant" and "inclusive".
If Muslims want to stone their adulterous women, why should we object? If Aborigines want to reject "white man" laws and live by their traditional tribal laws, then we should accommodate this. Yes, we should invite all cultures to pick and choose from a smorgasbord of laws and, if groups like the anarchists want to reject all laws, how can we discriminate? Yes, bring on the utopia, but not before I have time to migrate to a country that has pride in its culture and safe streets.
Tomorrow is the Australian federal election, and while I have been known to spout my political views in public forums from time to time, I have not done so as part of my media career as there is no place for it.
As a result, this blog has steered clear of politics also.
"THIS is one of the hardest columns I will write. John Howard has been the finest prime minister Australia has had.
He has overseen extraordinary economic success, created the conditions for a whole new class of aspirational Australians to prosper from the inevitable forces of globalisation, confronted the scourge of terrorism and has fundamentally realigned the political landscape in this country on so many fronts. Under Howard it became cool to be a conservative. He rebuilt a political philosophy of individual responsibility for a new generation. His legacy is profound. From workplace reform to welfare to indigenous politics, to our sense of national identity, Howard has changed the nation in a way very few leaders ever do. Each step rankled his opponents as they clung to old orthodoxies. Yet Howard, through sheer dint of character and intellectual fortitude, prevailed."
wait.... I was going to write a long break down of why a columnist this biased is a waste of space, but on re-reading her comments I vomited a little into my mouth and now need to go and spit this out and rinse my mouth with plutonium.
I am taking the Ms Fits option; do not engage an enemy that is so stupid and beneath you.
"KEVIN has done it, not just once but twice, as he confessed last night. Brendan Nelson has done it, when he was 20. Alexander Downer says he has never done it when on official business. Tony Abbott won't talk about whether he's done it, because he doesn't want to fib. And nobody quite dares to ask John Howard whether he's been to a strip club."
"Nobody dares?" More like "No one gives a crap" If John Howard has never been to a strip club, then he ought to make a up a story that he has!
Me? Oh yes, I have been to the odd strip club. Twice this year alone. (once for MY bucks, once for Donny's). In fact I would like to confess here and now that I fell asleep during my last lap dance as I was "tired and emotional" That's how much I rate titty bars. Meh.
Political considerations aside ("Are the women empowered by the money and position they hold over the men?" vs. "Why do university student women with all those brains and education so often stoop top such a debasing job?" blah blah), if you are a group of 10 or so men, then best of luck getting into a bar/nightclub that isn't a strip club at 1am on a Friday/Saturday night.
I remember my old mate Dan Tehan's bucks night- we ended up in a strip club at about 1am despite trying to get into about 3 bars as a group and even failing when we broke up into groups of two. In the end we could either go to a gay bar or a boob bar.
"PHEW, Live Earth is over. The seven concerts on seven continents featuring a bunch of jet fuel-addicted rock stars summed up the problem with much of the talk about climate change. Hypocrisy aside, the climate change rockers and other zealots would have us believe there is no problem more uniquely modern than climate change. When it comes to mapping out solutions to this most 21st century of problems, history can teach us nothing. We are on our own. Right? Well, actually, no. Wrong. Dead wrong."
Yes Janet, maybe history can teach us.
For starters, I have no problem with Rock Stars (and Al Gore et al) flying around the globe to spread the message. It's a standard line the deniers: "if they are anti Co2, why do they fly?". It's so tired and lame that I guess I can only address it by saying this:
Its the same as those who sent troops to Iraq to fight for peace. See, you create more of the problem (war/Co2) to prevent/reduce the problem (war/Co2).
The difference is that you can't really fight for peace in a country like Iraq. The more you fight, the more you encourage fringe thinkers into becoming outright fighters against you.
In contrast, people can get on board with reducing their carbon foot print. They don't have to kill anyone to do it. They can save money into the bargain. win/win.
Still, as a national columnist it's difficult to give any real thinking to this. You just have to job out something controversial and topical every three or so days, so skipping on the thinking part is de rigeur.
And before I get shouted down for being a motoring journalist talking about carbon footprints etc, I'd like to point out the following:
Despite all my talking/writing/blogging about cars, I don't actually own one.
I catch public transport a lot- I have a 10 trip ticket in my wallet at all times.
When I do need to make a vehicular trip, I ride my low carbon output motorcycle, or ride my bicycle or, heaven forbid, I walk.
I am about to start offsetting my car tests.
I have been pushing via my on air appearances hybrid cars (special on the 18th July, already did a feature on the Volt electric car in December of 2006, and called for F1 to be a hybrid category in the coming years)
This needs a campy voice over: "As an Illegal immigrant, you will get to see all that a detention centre can offer: self harm, children crying, riots and beatings... Are you into water sports? Then you MUST try water-boarding!
Our a la carte slops bin will give provide the nutrition you need to sit around for 5+ years while your application is stuffed around. If you are really lucky you may be declared stateless- this will allow you to stay on indefinitely and really see all that an 8' X 4' cell can offer!
Are you a mentally ill Australian with an accent? Well this is the place for you! Forget treatment and loved ones, why not try treatment-free sub-human jail conditions?!"
For those of us in sunny Australia, the name Barack Obama means very little.
I know about him thanks to my ever-so-politcally-aware brother Stephen, who is a very enthusiastic supporter of Obama and suggested that I watch the following speeches from the Democratic National Convention back in 2004: Part 1, 9:35
Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas. His parents met while both were attending the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student. In his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes a nearly race-blind early childhood. He writes: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me –- that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk –- barely registered in my mind."
He's an amazing speaker, a prodigious writer and a true thinker. I hope that if he can't be president (addressing whether the USA is ready for a black or female president is the stuff books are made of), he can still be an influential politician who delivers to his country a world view and can engage in the odd piece of navel gazing (or shoe gazing, I'm never sure which is better).
He's starting his run for president early. I was prompted to post about him as the US papers are reporting about him a lot lately:
I love this letter. It starts out edgy, then migrates to mad town. The last paragraph is just fantastic. ALL APPLAUD!
"Conceivable issues for women at war
RE 'Let women fight' ( The Age, 2/10). There is a slight problem with the Geneva Conventions, which were drawn up before affirmative action and equal employment opportunities existed. Females and transgender soldiers are not covered. China, Israel, Russia and Vietnam have scrapped their female combat soldier experiments.
Could the Government be sued by an offspring if a soldier, in the early stages of pregnancy, is bayoneted, blasted, gassed, inoculated or shot? Military medical personnel would have to carry out pregnancy tests before X-raying incoming casualties. Possibly females would have to be withdrawn from a combat unit after conception or sign a contract to the effect they will not become pregnant while posted to a combat unit.
Politicians should direct their legislative energies towards outlawing married soldiers and their partners from having affairs with other soldiers or their partners, as in the US. The current no-intimate-contact-on-military-duty policy does not safeguard soldiers from colleagues who are serial breakers of trust. This is a serious threat to military unit cohesion. Chris Gardiner, Dundas, NSW"
Yes! Here's the campaign: "If ya wear army boots- no roots!"
