kgambit

http://www.opcw.org/news/article/the-sarin-gas-attack-in-japan-and-the-related-forensic-investigation/ Too many details but the essentials are somewhere in the forensics section. I'll concede that the Sarin liquid in Tokyo was not pure, I never disputed that. My sources say 35% with the composition spelled out as follows. Sarin 35% diethyl-aniline DEA (10%), hydrogen methylphosphonofluoridate MPF (10%), DIMP (1%), DFP (0.1%) petroleum ether (hexane) 43%. Everything except the hexane is either a precursor (MPF), a reagant (DEA) or a byproduct (DIMP & DFP). The diethyl-aniline for example was used to neutralize the acid formed during two steps of the synthesis. The DEA was a substitute because the AUM chemist couldn't get access to the correct base. Using DEA reduced the purity of the final liquid. The hexane was added after the synthesis was complete to make the resulting liquid easier to carry and become widespread. The dilution of the sarin liquid by the addition of the hexane is not a byproduct of synthesis: it is a direct result of the choice of the mode of dissemination and delivery. If you factor the dilution into account, the synthesized purity of the sarin was 61% not 35%. In Tokyo the sarin liquid was placed in 11 plastic bags; 2 were never punctured and one was punctured a single time and was recovered half full. At best, that's 77% efficient and combined with the reduction from dilution you get a final delivery system efficiency of (.35/.61) x (.77) = .44 or 44%. In fairness, the % of DEA and hexane are wildly different between two souces (but strangely the % of the combination doesn't). It does change the numbers but it's not that important compared to the effects of aerosol delivery systems as I maintained earlier. Sarin gas doesn't quite follow Huber's law but it's close. Huber's law generally states that the lethal exposure time is inversely proportional to the concentration of gas. So yes, a purer Sarin sample would have increased casualties. The higher the concentration, the less time you can spend before exposure is lethal. The trick with Sarin is that its lethality also increases with higher concentrations and shorter exposure times. The goal should be to increase concentrations so the lethal exposure time doesn't give your intended victims opportunity to flee the scene and limit their exposure. Aerosols do the trick. There are two major advantages to delivering sarin through an aerosol. An aerosol greatly increases the exposed surface of the liquid. Anyone who has studied first year thermodynamics knows that the evaporation rate of a liquid is directly proportional to the exposed surface area. Aerosols also introduce a far greater percentage of the liquid to the atmosphere in a given amount of time (at least when compared to the couple of dozen punctures from Tokyo). Don't believe me? Try this thought experiment: Take a pool of liquid (for the sake of argument assume it's a disk and the height is proportional to the radius). The volume of the liquid is always proportional to radius^3 and the surface area is always proportional to radius^2. Now turn that one big pool into 27,000 little pools; each with 1/27,000 of the volume of the original. There is still the same amount of liquid but the total surface area of all those little pools is 30 times greater than before. That increased surface area translates to an evaporation rate that is 30 times greater than the single puddle. That gets the liquid in gaseous form a LOT faster than allowing it to evaporate thru a couple of dozen punctured holes as in Tokyo, thereby creating a much higher concentration in a very short time. So you tell me which is likely to have the biggest impact? Increasing the purity of the sample (and the subsequent concentration) by a factor of 3 and delivering it ala Tokyo or taking the original sarin and delivering it via aerosols with at least a 30 fold increase in concentration ? I maintain its the latter. "Robert Kupperman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, for example, was quoted as saying that "Had the terrorists come up with a decent aerosol delivery system,...they would have killed 300 people or more" Interviews with {aum} indicated that they had originally planned to aerosalize the sarin but for some reason didn't carry through." from http://dead-planet.net/chemical-terrorism/canada/postscr_e.html "Perhaps the most important factor in the effectiveness of chemical weapons is the efficiency of dissemination." from http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html France is doing a lot of saber rattling, so who knows? The possibility of western intervention could entail more arms, a no-fly zone and other bennies .... hard to say though.

Great points Wals. Couple of thoughts: 3) If the success of the rebel campaign depends on foreign intervention, why would they do the one thing that would kill any chance of that occurring? Is their situation so untenable that this was a last ditch "WTF! Let's roll the dice and see if we can fool everyone." moment? Or is this just one more BS attempt to demonize Assad? (although it looks like the US is going to by this hook line and sinker ..... ) Assad's government has been accused of multiple prior incidents (possibly as many as 13 by some count). If that's true, why would this one be any different? Was there insufficient intel to prove who was at fault then? Does the proof exist now? Or is this simply a matter of looking for a pretext to kick Assad out? *I don't understand Assad's reluctance to let the UN inspectors into the area either. Proving that the attack was rebel initiated would give him a huge I told you so moment - " I told you that these guys were terrorists!" and could go a long way to making the US rethink intervention. The Russians are urging him to co-operate. Assad should take their advice. An analysis of the sarin itself might yield some clues as to its manufacture and origin. Syria uses a binary delivery system where the final stages of synthesis of sarin are carried out during delivery. That means the two component chemicals are (reasonably) pre-measured so little contamination would be present. The terrorists are more likely to have produced a contaminated version. Finding a sample is going to be tough. This isn't like Tokyo where samples of the sarin were recovered intact. I really don't like where Obama seems to be headling here and perhaps in Egypt.

If chemical weapons were easy to make we would see plenty of terrorists use them. Nerve gas is especially tricky to produce and even that cult couldn't get good quality despite access to stupid amounts of money and some of the brightest students in Japan. Fair. It's not easy easy, like ammonia based explosives. But it's hardly a stretch to suggest that a Qaeda franchise _in the middle east_ could do it if it had a good enough reason to want it. The reason more terrorists don't use chemical weapons is - according to Al Qaeda's literature - is that they take so much effort to make compared with an equivalent effort towards explosives. Last time I checked, Qaeda still wanted them, but wasn't encouraging anyone to pick them first. Chemical weapons experts who evaluated the Tokyo attacks and the chemicals have asserted that the sarin produced by the cult was capable of killing tens of thousands of people. It was the delivery system that was the real problem. As it was, their extremely simple dispersion system affected over 5000 people. Had that system been more effective, the death toll would have been substantially higher. One expert said that the terrorist should have used something comparable to a backpack garden pesticide sprayer to aerosolize the gas. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_rpt/aum/part05.htm I wonder if it's chemical component controls that makes them difficult to make in quantities and the inability to have access to portable and reliable delivery systems? I also wonder if Assad's stockpiles of binary chemical weapons are really as secure as his government has maintained they are.

Thank you. No, I'm not Egyptian and neither is any relative (by birth or marriage).

He's being released pending a retrial. His legal team appealed his first conviction and won the appeal. The court threw out the first conviction on the grounds that the first court had no judicial standing. The court did not acquit him of the charges, so the charges from his first trial still stand but he will be retried in a different court. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/17/world/meast/egypt-mubarak-retrial

Tom Clancy’s The Division confirmed for PC http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/08/20/tom-clancys-the-division-is-coming-to-pc/

I think if I fully understand Zo's pov is he sees a powerful Egyptian military that calls all the shots from behind the scenes. I agree with him that they are certainly capable of such machinations; I just don't agree with Zo about the degree to which they have done that. Maybe it's naivete, but that sounds a bit too conspiratorial for me. The military's stand-off policy during the popular demonstrations led to Mubarak's fall: but that was a relatively passive roll. They didn't roll tanks or troops in the support of the Taramod. The "nature abhors a vacuum" idea is certainly plausible. This is a great article from someone exceptionally well versed in the inner workings of Egyptian politics and the role of the military. I think there are parts of it that are applicable to Mursi as well. By Anthony H. Cordesman Feb 10, 2011 http://csis.org/publication/if-mubarak-leaves-role-us-military That analysis was written a scant two months before Mubarak's arrest. It's highly unlikely that the Egyptian military has undergone a sea change since then. And here is the conclusion of the author of that article: Nailed that one I think. It also raises a serious issue of how realistic the Egyptian populace's expectations are. Egypt's economy is in dreadful state and a two year fix is simple unrealistic imo.

One correction: I said that the military hasn't filled civilian positions. I meant that the military has not appointed their own officers to civilian positions. Former Field Marshal Tantawi's was appointed Defense Minister by Mubarak in 1991. He resigned his office in 2012. I won't deny the military in Egypt does wield a lot of power and perhaps everything you say is true. It's possible that Mursi and Scaf (Supreme Council for Armed Forces) had reached a power sharing agreement that Mursi breached and the military decided to orchestrate his removal. If that is an accurate assessment and military is pulling the strings (as you claim), then why would it have even allowed a Muslim Brotherhood candidate to run for office in 2012? The military had doubts about Mursi before the elections. It could have easily ensured that Mursi never came to power. There was already a precedent from 2005 when the MB was banned from participating in the parliamentary elections. Given some of the charges of election fraud that have surfaced during Mubarak's reign, it shouldn't have been that difficult. Your point about a hereditary succession re: Gamal is partially correct but Hosni wasn't booted as a way to ensure Gamal never came to power. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Let's just see how things play out.

Before I dive in, could you explain exactly what "a bunch of other reactionary and counter revolutionary stuff" means? Do you mean the courts as represented by the Supreme Constitutional Court whose decision to nullify parliament was overridden by Mursi (after only eight days in office)? Do you mean the same military led by General al-Sisi (before he became CiC) who submitted a report to Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi in early April 2010 which predicted the uprising that would overthrow Mubarak. Tantawi asked him: "At that time, what do you think we should do?" He replied: "We will support the people's uprising and will not fire on a single citizen." And in fact, it was the Security Police under government, and not military control at the time, who were responsible for firing into the crowds. Or the General al-Sisi who predicted that Mursi would be in the second ballot run-off. When al-Sisi was asked "Do you think that Morsi is capable of breaking free from the control of the [brotherhood], its guidance office and the supreme guide?" His answer: "The question is not whether he is capable, but rather does he want this?" http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/07/sisi-egypt-morsi-ouster.html This is the same military that made no claim on any political office nor expressed any intention to fill civilian positions and appointed Chief Justice Adli Mansour as interim president. The same military that tried to negotiate with Mursi and the MB for a resolution. Considering that the courts upheld Mubarak's appeal and ordered Mubarak's re-trial back in January when Mursi was still in office, I'm not sure why his release now is that much of an issue. His release was actually ordered back in April but the court issuing the release order had no jurisdiction in the matter. He's 85, in failing health and he's likely being released for health reasons. I'm not sure if his release don't come with conditions such as house arrest. Unless you somehow are imaging a conspiracy where the military led by General al-Sisi is going to forcibly reinstate Mubarak, it's a moot point. Let's get some facts straight. El-Baradei was not on the first ballot. He did announce his candidacy for the Presidency . His Constitution Party was formed after the mandated deadline and he was ineligible to appear on the ballot. If El-Baradei had been elected and had done exactly what Mursi had done you're correct - he wouldn't have been any better than Mursi. That scenario and your imagined reaction are nothing more than speculation. I would suggest that given el-Baradei's history and his resignation as VP, that entire scenario very unlikely. I'll concede that removing the prosecutor general wasn't a totally bad move as the PG was a Mubarak holdover. The Egyptian judicial system has been screaming for reform for years. The pre-emptive decision, solely made by Mursi, coupled with the rest of the decree is the real problem. By itself or as part of a sweeping reform, it would have easily been overlooked and even praised. In the context of the decree, it simply looked like one more step of a massive power grab. Your characterization of this as a junta is inaccurate. IF and when the military begins replacing civilian positions with military officers then you can call it a junta.

Perhaps the poster was created by the Department of Redundancy Department.

Could some approximation of one of the monolithic dynasties of the USA be used to simulate royalty, such as the Kennedy's for instance? Royalty isn't the key theme. The Quest for power (and revenge) is. The US version simply replaces the King with the President. It chronicles Frank Underwood's attempt to gain power and revenge after promising his support to a presidential candidate and then being screwed over. It's similar to Uruquhart's quest to become Prime Minister. It's not an exact equivalency but it works. I can't post any more details since there would be way too many spoilers for either series.

Nicely done. I bookmarked that for future reference.

Thatcher is a good example - to a point. Thatcher resigned after Michael Heseltine launched a challenge to her leadership in 1990. She failed by four votes on the first ballot to gain a sufficient majority for an outright win and was persuaded to resign as leader of the Conservative party. Her fall in itself is a bit ironic since in 1979 it was Thatcher who led the vote of no confidence that toppled James Callaghan. I suspect Thatcher lasted as long as she did primarily due to the oil boom of the 80's which boosted oil revenue to 16% of UK GDP and the tax cuts she enacted. But here's the main difference between Thatcher and Mursi: Thatcher never attempted to alter the government or fundamentals of democracy beyond her mandate. She didn't try to stack the courts, rewrite the UK constitution, to silence the media or even jail her opponents. She failed because her own party kicked her out. No one ever questioned whether she was attempting to work for the good of all citizens of the UK. They simply questioned whether her policies were the right way of doing things. Contrast that with the manner in which Mursi operated. In fact, this is his last declaration that set off the firestorm. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/58947/Egypt/Politics-/English-text-of-Morsis-Constitutional-Declaration-.aspx and a link with a review of it: http://thinkafricapress.com/egypt/president-mursi-new-pharoah-revolutionarys-clothes-morsi

I'll admit the term Islamofascist is a tiny bit incendiary but it was intended to be. I think the question of legitimacy is valid. I won't dispute the vote count. Mursi won by a razor thin majority, but he did win. But to be blunt I think Mursi flat-out lied to the electorate. He ran on a platform of inclusion; of forming a government for all Egyptians, Islamist and secular alike. And once in power, the government became a nearly exclusive fiefdom of the Muslim Brotherhood. The committee formed to draft the constitution was also predominantly Islamic. Further, he gave himself unlimited powers, including the right to legislate without judicial oversight. Before he was deposed, Mursi was remarkably similar to the man whose office he took: Hosni Mubarak. I don't know what mechanisms the Egyptian constitution have for peaceful removal of an elected official. Perhaps there are none. If that's the case, the first order of business for a new constitution and government might be to consider those options before holding new elections. It might be worthwhile to reconsider exactly what form of government and parliamentary body the Egyptians want. I think the Tunisians got it pretty close to right, with a fairly inclusive form of elected congress where every party has a voice and a coalition government is a virtual guarantee. I have no clue how this is going to be resolved. I don't see Mursi resuming power - that ship has sailed. Some folks have suggested that the recent coup has now made secularism and Authoritarianism one and the same: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-macdonald/egypt-secularism-means-authoritarianism_b_3772570.html As an aside, I've seen a number of photos taken of the "protesters" at Raba'a al-Adawiya mosque in Cairo's Nasr City neighbourhood that seem to show armed Mursi supporters with automatic weapons, gas masks, police riot shields and batons. (NBC News had them). That doesn't seem to fit the image of peaceful dissent to me.

Oby, you're funny but also quite delusional. From the article: Russian online newspaper Lenta met with those who have joined the "Occupy-Pedofilyay" campaign to learn more about the movement. "We do not like homosexuals," the leader of one local gathering explained, according to a HuffPost translation. "If it was up to me, I'd kill them but the government doesn't allow that." So you are claiming that the members of the group who profess to hate homosexuals and would like to kill them are in fact homosexuals themselves? No, I'm not homophobic at all. I'm not threatened by gays in the least. I simply believe that everyone deserves equal protection under the law, even your own Russian constitution guarantees that. The fact that you are doing your best to justify the behavior of these thugs or to argue that the victims of the neo-nazis do not deserve that protection says far more about you than it does about me. I don't know what drugs you are taking Oby, but you seriously need to consider cutting back the dosage.

The very first link http://bigstory.ap.org/article/center-egypt-protest-morsis-legitimacy provides about as neutral a view of both sides of the question as I've seen in print anywhere. It doesn't bash either side. It simply presents the Taramod and Brotherhood sides of the constitutional issues and the legitimacy questions without judgng the merits or validity. How much more unbiased do you want? I would have thought that the very first quote from that article would have indicated that. You know the one that stated: If a fair vote is conducted, even if the majority is slim or the turnout modest, all must respect the results. Otherwise it's political chaos. That wasn't my opinion but the opinion of the author of the article. I don't recall using the poll figures as justification for anything, let alone the coup. That was a logical leap you made. I simply presented them to show how drastically his approval rating had fallen with the Egyptian people. I do stick by my Islamofascist reference because frankly imo it fits. The previous post is ample evidence of that. I don't recall using the term religious loonies either but you may be referring to another poster. As for religion in constitutions, I would agree with you. I don't think they belong; but that's not my call or yours to make. If the Egyptians (or Tunisians) want a form of government that is intertwined with Shariah law, that is entirely their choice. You and I do not get to make that call for them, either way. We can sit back and shake our heads and hope they make a different choice and that's all. I think the issue of legimacy is valid but that's my opinion. To grossly oversimplify, here is the 64,000$ questions: Are the excesses of the Mursi regime sufficient justification for the Egyptian military to overthrow Mursi's government on behalf of the Egyptian people? OR Should the Egyptian people be forced to "lie in a bed of their own making" no matter what? The nice thing about living in a democracy is that you can express your opinions freely and openly without fear of reprisal. You and I don't have to agree and that's fine. One can only hope that the Egyptian people are eventually granted the same rights. Sorry for the back to back posts .....

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/morsi-brotherhood-lost-egypt-bsabry.html By: Bassem Sabry for Al-Monitor Posted on July 4 Cairo: Egypt

Here you go. http://www.seductionmeals.com/index.html http://www.seductionmeals.com/recipes.html http://www.seductionmeals.com/recipes-favorite-seduction-mea/sweet-temptations/

I found this Numenera character generator which shows how the 3 word description alters your stats. You can either let it randomize the descriptors or select each one from a pull down menu. http://darkliquid.co.uk/playground/numenera/

ARRRGH! Holland throw a two hitter thru 7; leaves leading 1-0, and Rangers bullpen blows the save. And in other news, Miguel Tejada joins the PED 13 and is suspended for 105 games for amphetamine use. (That was his third failed drug test) http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/23194239/miguel-tejada-suspended-for-105-games-for-amphetamines

Exactly. My understanding is that grinding for combat xp isn't possible. Unless the game sets a cap level at a significantly reduced fraction of the maximum available xp an xp cap shouldn't be a problem.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/ohio-man-orders-empty-gun-safe-finds-300-100029959.html

Well it's not like Witcher DLCs are the same scale. The new missions were much shorter than Legacy or Mark of the Assassin in DA2. But Bioware/EA DLC have ridiculous prices. I can't even recall how much I spent on DLC for DA2, ME2, and ME3. I'm sorry to say this Rhamnetin but I have decided to forbid you from playing the Witcher 3 when it is released. You have been far too negative about the genre and I feel I need to make an example. I know this may sound harsh but if I see a concerted effort from you to be more positive about the game I quite possibly may change my mind. But until then no Witcher 3 for you !!!! LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J02RdkvI6zo&list=TLGnDlt5Lcgk8

Finished watching The Killing season 1. American adaptation of the Danish series, The Crime. Set in Seattle and centers on the murder of a teenage girl called Rosie Larsen. Tons of plot twists. Really good show. Just ordered season 2 on DVD. Has anyone been watching The White Queen (BBC/Starz) or The Fall (BBC2) with Gillian Anderson? Looking for some feedback and brief non-spoiler reviews.

For those of you who see no issue with the Neo-Nazi assaults against gays, I suggest you re-read the Russian constitution. http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/rs00000_.html Russian Constitution: