Reorganizing the gun safe

I've been hard at work on a lot of domestic tasks that have been neglected for too long.  One of them was to reorganize my gun safe.

Handguns are always a problem to store in such a way that they don't knock into each other or rest precariously on top of each other, to fall out and get damaged if you so much as look at them crossways.  I've used two primary storage methods for them.  The first is Acorn holsters attached with Velcro to the inside of my gun safe door.  (All images courtesy of Amazon.com.)

These hold lighter handguns, typically polymer-framed pistols or lightweight (i.e. alloy-framed) revolvers.  I prefer to mount the holsters on a sheet of felt-type material hanging from the top of the safe door, because I found their Velcro tabs pulled fuzz off the door lining without that extra protection.

My second storage method was, until yesterday, a Liberty Safes wood rack holding 8 handguns, storing them pointing vertically upwards.

The difficulty with this gun rack is that, if you have rifles and shotguns with long barrels in your gun safe, it forces you to move the top shelf upward to accommodate them.  This means that there's less vertical space above the top shelf to store longer-barreled handguns in such a rack.  I found I could store 4" barreled revolvers and pistols with no problem, and some 5" models as well, but anything longer than that didn't fit.

I've accordingly swapped it for a Versatile Rack system.  It stores handguns lying on their backs, taking up much less vertical space.  They make them for anything from one to ten handguns, and even offer a kit to stack one rack on top of another if space permits.  Their VR10 rack is shown below;  as its name suggests, it holds up to 10 handguns.  This will fit across the top shelf of most medium to large gun safes.

Finally, I picked up some handgun hangers, which I attached to the top shelf of my gun safe.  The gun barrel slides over the lower prong, suspending the gun beneath the shelf.

I've put shorter rifles and shotguns on one side of the gun safe, so that handguns supported by these hangers don't interfere with them, and vice versa.

My gun safe is now much better organized, and I no longer have to stack handguns in boxes or pistol rugs on top of each other in every odd nook and cranny.  If you've had the same problem and/or want to make the most of the space available in your gun safe, I recommend this combination of solutions.

Peter

A smokescreen as home security device?

I'm sure many readers have heard about smoke generators used as anti-theft devices in some stores.  Here are a couple of video clips to illustrate the concept.  First, a demonstration of a device in England.

Next, an actual armed robbery in South Africa, foiled by the smoke generator.

Of course, both videos were provided by suppliers of these devices, so there may be failures that they prefer not to publicize.

I've had a couple of people ask me whether I thought it was a good idea to install something like this in one's home, to drive burglars or home invaders out without their being able to steal anything.  I'm not sure it is.  If there's a need to evacuate the home (for example, if a fire starts, or the intruders begin shooting wildly) the smoke might prevent one finding one's own way out of the danger zone.  However, if you know your home well, you can probably navigate around the corridors and to the front or back door by touch if necessary.  Intruders presumably won't have that same level of knowledge, so you might be able to get away from them.  (On the other hand, if they're fumbling around blindly and you walk into them, who knows what might happen?)

What say you, readers?  Good idea, or a complicating factor?

Peter

Why our economy is as screwed as our politics

I know this article from CNS News has been highlighted on the Drudge Report today, and mentioned on a number of blogs, but I think it's worth mentioning it here too.  It demonstrates, clearly, concisely and in irrefutable arithmetical fact, precisely why our economy - and our politics - are neck-deep in the dwang.  What's more, they're going to stay there until our feckless politicians stop making promises they can't afford to keep, and start living within the nation's means.  I don't foresee that happening with any of the current crop in Washington.

Here are a couple of key quotes from the article.

86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

. . .

The 86,429,000 Americans who worked full-time, year-round in the private sector, included 77,392,000 employed as wage and salary workers for private-sector enterprises and 9,037,000 who worked for themselves. (There were also approximately 52,000 who worked full-time, year-round without pay in a family enterprise.)

At first glance, 86,429,000 might seem like a healthy population of full-time private-sector workers. But then you need to look at what they are up against.

The Census Bureau also estimates the size of the benefit-receiving population.

. . .

There were 108,592,000 people in the fourth quarter of 2011 who lived in a household that included people on "one or more means-tested program."

Those 108,592,000 outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private-sector workers who inhabited the United States in 2012 by almost 1.3 to 1.

. . .

There were 49,901,000 people receiving Social Security in the fourth quarter of 2011, and 46,440,000 receiving Medicare. There were also 5,098,000 getting unemployment compensation.

And there were also, 3,178,000 veterans receiving benefits and 34,000 veterans getting educational assistance.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who "received benefits from one or more programs" in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

As more baby boomers retire, and as Obamacare comes fully online — with its expanded Medicaid rolls and federally subsidized health insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level — the number of takers will inevitably expand. And the number of full-time private-sector workers might also contract.

Eventually, there will be too few carrying too many, and America will break.

There's more at the link.  You really should read the whole thing.

Those of us who understand reality had better be preparing now for what will happen when it bites us all in the ass - because it will.  Mathematics is an exact, precise science.  The figures cited above are mathematical reality.  So is their inevitable consequence, no matter how much our politicians might like to ignore reality and pretend it'll never happen.

Peter

More fallout from the Nevada standoff

I'd like to recommend two articles to your attention.  Both have been spreading around the blogosphere today.

The first is a long, but very thought-provoking post over at Taxicab Depressions.  It's titled 'The Pig Trap', and uses that analogy to describe what the unelected bureaucracy running the federal government appears to be trying to do to us.  I'm not sure whether or not I fully agree with the author's perspective, but I certainly agree with parts of it.  Highly recommended reading.

Second, National Review Online has an acerbic take on the response of the US government to the Bundy standoff.  Money quote:

One can be a supporter of the rule of law and still recoil in anger and disgust from the militarized display of force by the federal government toward Clive Bundy ... The appalling contempt this government has shown toward its citizens and the rule of law is the context in which the Bundy-BLM confrontation is playing out. It’s a context that further diminishes, rather than enhances, Americans’ respect for the rule of law.

More and more I'm getting the impression that the Bundy standoff may prove to have been a turning point in the way Americans relate to their government.  I certainly hope so.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #763

This one's courtesy of Autoblog.  The video is self-explanatory.

If that's how they tried to get it out, would anyone care to speculate how they got it in there in the first place?




Peter

The 'last wishes' of a venerable VW vehicle

I'm sure many of my readers have driven (or been driven in) a VW Kombi, or Microbus, or van, or whatever it was called in their country.  (In South Africa it was first called the Kombi, then the Microbus for the variant with the updated body.)  I drove both types for thousands of miles up and down the country, ferrying people and supplies here and there.

The Kombi came onto the market as a derivation of the legendary VW Beetle, and was launched in 1950.  It's been manufactured in Brazil since 1957, and that country was also the last to make it.  The production line shut down at the end of last year after producing a final 600 vehicles in a special 'Final Edition', shown below.

To commemorate 63 years of production of the Kombi, Volkswagen produced this nostalgic advertisement guaranteed to appeal to old-timers like me.  YMMV, of course.

Clever, cute and nostalgic.  What's not to like?

Peter

"When Los Angeles was a rustic village"

That's the title of a photo essay in the Telegraph, featuring images dating back to the 19th century.  Here are a couple of them to whet your appetite.

Visitors to Santa Monica Beach in the 1880's

San Fernando Valley in the 1890's

Looks a bit different today, doesn't it?  There are many more images at the link.  Interesting viewing for history buffs.

Peter

Special price on "Take The Star Road" - two days only!

If any of my readers haven't tried my novels yet, and would like to, I'm currently running a promotion through Amazon's Kindle Countdown Deals.  My first novel, 'Take The Star Road', is on special at 99c for the next couple of days.  The deal ends on Thursday evening.

I've publicized the promotion through BookBub and other services, and so far it's going very well.  I've sold almost 1,500 copies since it kicked off on Sunday evening.  Of course, because the price is heavily discounted I make much less money per book sold, but that's OK - I hope to gain a large number of readers who otherwise wouldn't have tried it at all, and who will (I hope) go on to enjoy my other books.

Finally, an appeal:  if you've read any of my books and have not yet left a review on Amazon.com, please, please do so!  It helps prospective readers decide whether they'd like to try it, and it helps me when it comes to arranging promotional deals like this - one factor that organizers take into account is the number and quality of reviews a book has attracted.

Thanks very much to everyone who's already bought one or more of my books.  You're a blessing.

Peter

Too cute for words!

Here's an utterly charming video, compiled from numerous clips, of youngsters recognizing their fathers as they come home from work.  It's irresistibly cute!

I know kids are an enormous amount of work, but this is one of the compensations.

Peter

Why I'm happy to pay taxes this year

Sounds odd, doesn't it?  Why should anybody be happy to pay taxes?

For me the story goes back to 2004, when I suffered a crippling injury at work.  Two surgeries later it became clear that I'd be permanently partially disabled, and I had to accept medical retirement.  A neurosurgeon told me bluntly that due to issues with pain, physical endurance, etc., I'd never again be able to work at a 'normal' 9-to-5 job, so I'd simply have to accept living on a disability pension.

My immediate reaction was, "To hell with that!"  My parents raised me to believe that a man looks after himself and his family;  pays his own way;  and relies on the assistance of others only when there's no alternative, and even then for as short a time as possible until he can stand on his own two feet again.  I was hampered, of course, by the fact that few employers would hire someone who couldn't do a full day's work for a full day's pay.  This grew even worse after the current recession hit in 2008;  with so many able-bodied workers desperate for a job, partially-abled folks like me weren't even considered most of the time.  Nevertheless, I had a plan.

In 1984, when I was 24 years old, my first book was published.  It dealt with prayer and wasn't commercial in orientation, but it proved (to me, at any rate) that I could write in a way that was interesting to others.  Several articles in professional journals had preceded it, and more followed until South Africa's civil unrest got in the way of further writing activities.  Therefore, after hearing that skeptical neurosurgeon in 2005 (and biting my lip to hold back a rude retort), I made up my mind to work hard at learning the craft of fiction writing and to try to make a living that way.  After all, my physical limitations wouldn't stop me writing whenever and wherever I could.

When pain woke me (as it often did, and still does) in the small hours of the morning, instead of taking another painkiller, I went to my study and wrote.  The pain wasn't fun, but it spurred me to harder work.  I found I could do a surprising amount while the rest of the world was asleep, even if I had to catch up on my rest during the day.  I wrote almost two dozen partial and complete novels over the next eight years, totaling a couple of million words.  None of them were very good:  but I learned from each failure, and worked harder, and the results got better and better.  (I wrote about the process at greater length last year.)

The publication of my first novels last year was the culmination of almost a decade of hard work.  I'm not earning a full living from them yet, but I made enough in 2013 for Uncle Sam to want a chunk of it.  I was happy to pay it.  It's concrete evidence to me that I'm contributing once more to the upkeep of the society in which I live, instead of just being a burden on it.  I'm once again a producer rather than a parasite.  That makes me all sorts of happy.  If I continue to work hard, and you continue to enjoy what I write, I hope to be fully self-supporting within another year or two.  I'm looking forward to the day when I can cancel further payments on my disability pension.

It's a good feeling.

Peter

Thoughts on the Nevada standoff

I've deliberately refrained from comment on the Nevada incident between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a rancher, his extended family and a few hundred (some say more than a thousand) supporters from around the country.  I've been trying to find out more information than has been discussed on blog posts, partisan news sources and a few mainstream media outlets.  There's a lot more to this than meets the eye, and I suspect it's a long way from over.

Here are a few points to ponder.


1.  Most sources of information were/are completely unreliable.

There was an awful lot of wrong information, deliberate disinformation, and outright lying going on.  Sources of 'news' such as Alex Jones' Infowars site (no, I'm not going to link to it), a number of III Percent blogs, etc. were utterly irresponsible in peddling information without double-checking it, reporting rumor as fact, and generally whipping up emotion (even hysteria) over the issue.  Anyone who trusts any of these sources for information is at best deluded (and that's putting it mildly).  They're poisoning the debate by their very presence.  I know we have freedom of expression, but if this is the way they're abusing that right, they surely don't deserve it.

The few thoughtful voices were almost drowned out by those clamoring to score political, philosophical and emotional points off the issue.  I suspect some of the latter would actually have been pleased if the rancher and/or some of his family had been arrested (or even killed) by BLM agents or other officials.  It would have become a rallying cry for them to whip up further emotion.

This is a very dangerous situation indeed for all those who love liberty and the rights recognized in our Constitution.  Legitimate defense of those rights is one thing.  Manipulation of issues to force confrontation, even armed conflict, by those who have taken a one-sided, highly partisan and emotional position about those rights is entirely another.  We need to ask ourselves, very simply, "Is this issue worth dying for?"  To do that, we have to be very clear about what the issue really is - something that wasn't always evident in this situation.  (I don't propose to answer that question here - each of us will have to do that for ourselves.)


2.  The problems with the BLM go back decades.

I've seen very few references to the fact that the BLM appears - I emphasize, appears - to have been trying to drive ranchers off public lands for several decades.  The origins of Mr. Bundy's conflict with the BLM are described in this very interesting contribution by a fellow rancher.  I strongly recommend that you read it in full.  If the information he provides is correct - I've been able to find other references that appear to support it, but not yet sufficient to say for sure that I've verified it - then it looks very much as if, two decades ago, the federal government and its agencies began arrogating to themselves powers, rights and privileges that they had never before elucidated or enforced.  It's apparently at that point that Mr. Bundy refused to pay further fees to the federal government, because he refused to recognize their 'rights grab'.  (I understand he continued to pay fees to his county government.)  However, Mr. Bundy also appears to hold certain opinions that are simply not in accordance with the facts - something that makes it more difficult to defend him.  He's certainly not blameless in this matter.


3.  There appears to be corruption and political influence-peddling behind this crisis.

Others have commented at length about the involvement in this crisis of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, his son Rory, his former aide, Chinese company ENN Energy, and other 'interested parties'.  Perhaps the most comprehensive overview of their alleged collusion has been provided by Newsmax.  Again, I urge you to read that report in full.  There's also the very interesting question of how, during a lifetime of elected political office, Senator Reid has managed to amass so much wealth for himself.  Some details may be found here.  If you think it happened solely because he made wise investments or 'got lucky', there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you . . .

If the allegations in those reports are correct, then I suggest the old proverb applies:  "There's no smoke without fire".  There's been so much smoke generated by and from this crisis that there's got to be a bloody great conflagration behind the scenes!  Furthermore, Senator Reid doesn't sound like he's giving up:

“Well, it’s not over,” Reid, D-Nev.,  told KRNV-TV in Reno on Monday. “We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

4.  There's a serious risk of further escalation of this conflict.

If I were rancher Cliven Bundy, I'd be preparing for a raid on my farmhouse by armed federal agents, probably not just BLM but also including FBI, US Marshals, and possibly ATF and other agencies.  Alternatively, the authorities may try to arrest him while he's running errands in town, or on the road.  They probably assume that if they can remove him from his property and get him out of the state within an hour or two, that will remove the focal point around which resistance can gather.  I think they're wrong in that assumption . . . but they've become accustomed to the arrogance of power.

I also think that some in the III Percent community are spoiling for a fight.  They'd welcome any excuse to strike back at what they consider to be an overreaching federal government, hoping to use an incident to inspire further resistance - even an all-out rebellion.  I think they're wrong about that, but no-one can be sure.

The Nevada stand-off has become an ongoing flash-point.  I hope and pray the authorities have the sense to realize that, and to let it de-escalate over time to where further developments can take place in the courtroom, where saner heads may yet prevail.  If an arrogant politician like Senator Reid gets involved, or authoritarian bureaucrats in the BLM and/or other agencies try to insist on doing it their way, all bets are off.  Bloodshed remains a very real possibility.


5.  This incident has implications for all Americans everywhere.

Remember this?

This is utterly unacceptable.  THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES IS A FIRST AMENDMENT AREA!!!

A city may designate areas for protesters in an effort to avoid conflict and/or confrontation between rival groups;  that's a legitimate method of 'keeping the peace'.  However, in the wide open spaces of Nevada, with only one group engaged in protest, that consideration doesn't apply.  This was nothing more or less than an attempt to silence protest and stifle dissent.  It didn't work - for which let's all be duly grateful.  However, I'm sure it won't be the last time it's tried.  (Did you ever wonder how the BLM just 'happened' to have those signs all pre-printed and ready for use?  I wonder how many more of them are waiting to be deployed during the next crisis?)  I confidently predict that federal authorities will continue to try to override the constitutional rights of Americans.  I fear that if they push too hard, or go too far, the answer will be bloodshed.

As a law enforcement officer I swore to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and 'that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same'.  Although I'm now retired, that oath did not (and never will) retire.  I continue to uphold it, and I will not stand by idly while other sworn officers deliberately and callously violate the very constitution they've sworn to support and defend.  I know many feel as I do - perhaps many more than the authorities might wish to admit, both serving and retired personnel.

The Nevada standoff is a wake-up call to all of us that the time may come when we have to stand up and be counted . . . or surrender our rights forever to an unelected, arrogant bureaucracy that's gotten too big for its collective boots.

I think a younger Ronald Reagan put it well.

Word.

Peter

Tongue in cheek, probably NSFW, but very funny!

I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I heard this.  Thanks to E. D. for sending me the link.

Classic double entendre!




Peter

Around The Blogs 2013-04-13

I didn't do an Around The Blogs feature last weekend, so here goes with two weeks' worth of entries.

# # #

Reason's Hit & Run blog points out that in ten years, the national debt has increased by ten trillion dollars, or over 145% from its starting point.  If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, economically and politically speaking, I don't know what will . . .  As the author notes:

At some point, you have to think that it's going to occur to people that the United States government seems neither willing nor able to stop borrowing, and to start paying the sum down, even a little bit.

Word.

# # #

Two bloggers seem to have come up with similar concepts over the past few days.  C. W. Swanson brings us 'The daily routines of famous scholars and artists', while The Art Of Manliness brings us 'Libraries Of Famous Men' (a so far incomplete collection).  Both were interesting articles.

# # #

Speaking of C. W. Swanson, he made me laugh out loud with two posts recently.  One concerned a US Marine with a serious lack of negotiating skills, while the other announced a historic record attempt.  He says he'd pay to watch it.  So would I!

# # #

Earthbound Misfit considers the conclusive evidence of the use of torture by US intelligence and other agencies, and asks 'Do we have the integrity to start criminal proceedings against our own torturers and enablers, or are we going to wait, like the Germans, until our resident war criminals are in their 90s? Or do like the Japanese, and pretend that it never happened?'  I entirely agree with her.  By any and every legal precedent you can think of, this was a war crime.  If we capture people who did this to our citizens and servicemen, we put them on trial (that is, if they survive that long in the first place).

Every single US politician, official, bureaucrat or operator who approved and/or ordered and/or carried out and/or covered up such torture needs to face prosecution.  No exceptions.  Either we are a nation of laws (laws which specifically and explicitly prohibit this sort of thing), or we're merely a slightly larger and richer version of Papa Doc's Haiti.

I know what I'd prefer us to be . . . but so far, given the absence of any official action against those concerned, I fear we're rapidly trending towards the other.

# # #

Speaking of official misconduct, Firehand has two articles that are cause for thought - and anger.  In the first he looks at the lack of accountability and punishment for law enforcement officers, officials and government bureaucrats who step out of line.  In the second, he examines the case of a New York man freed after 24 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of a crime, due to the deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence by prosecuting and law enforcement authorities.  He concludes:

Let's see, perjury, paying for fake testimony, hiding evidence, knowingly putting an innocent man in prison... f*** suing them, HANGING is too good for the bastards.

I can't argue with that.

# # #

The Lonely Libertarian tickled my funny-bone with two recent posts.  One is why a certain well-known blogger shouldn't text love messages.  The other is why an Eagle Scout still has a lot to learn about some things . . .

# # #

Dr. Brian Mattson has an intriguing explanation of the inspiration for Darren Aronofsky's new movie 'Noah'.  He points out the Kabbalistic and Gnostic influences on the director, which explain why and how the film differs from the Biblical, Sumerian and Akkadian mythological narratives.  I found it very interesting.  Recommended reading, particularly for Christians who don't know the origins of the Biblical story.

# # #

The New Rebellion University takes a look at a video hit-job titled 'The Five Worst Weapons Still In Use'.  I've seen all of those weapons in a combat zone - and let me tell you, I was delighted to have them on my side!  When the enemy used some of them against us, it wasn't nearly as much fun.  As the author points out, they may be politically incorrect, but they work.  He nominates five other 'Worst Weapons' preferred by progressives, that are far worse.  I'm inclined to agree with him.

# # #

Jay G. has an article about the diamond-shaped warning placards found on transport vehicles, advising what they're carrying and the dangers it poses in the event of a leak or an accident.  He links to some very useful information.

In less useful but very funny vein, he brings us a video clip of some of Darth Vader's most memorable sayings, read by the actor who voices Winnie the Pooh.  I never thought I'd hear the Dark Lord end a line with "Oh, bother!"  Star Wars will never seem the same again . . .

# # #

Warren Meyer fulminates against feel-good legislation that can and will achieve nothing whatsoever except to expand the scope of bureaucratic overreach and impose additional administrative burdens on already hard-pressed businesses.  As an example, he links to what California expects businesses to post for their employees.  It's a mind-bogglingly long list of bureaucratic inanity.

# # #

Cap'n Bob illustrates why scare headlines in the mainstream media aren't always something to worry about - particularly when the 'science' behind them isn't science at all, but the droppings from an overimaginative and underinformed journalistic hive-mind.

# # #

Borepatch brings us 'a good lesson for a lot of people'.

# # #

Exurban Kevin provides some interesting statistics to demonstrate that 'You’re not paranoid for wanting to own and carry a gun. You’re just better at math than most people.'  In another post, he makes the case for preparing an evacuation plan for your home in case of fire or any other emergency.  Both articles are worthwhile reading.

# # #

Sarah Hoyt looks at the problem of what we owe children:  'specifically, what is owed the children of people who have them solely to extort a living from the well meaning and caring in society'.  It's a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion.

In a comment to her post, fellow author Casey Neumiller examines the problem of helping those who don't have the understanding or will to help themselves, using Haiti as an example.  It's an interesting corollary to and case study for the points Sarah makes.

# # #

CenTexTim has an interesting take on the war between the sexes.

# # #

Herschel Smith examines the multiple onslaughts on the middle class in America today by groups treating it as a host upon which they are parasites.  He concludes:

With multiplication of the parasites the host cannot survive, but that doesn’t stop the parasites ... Eventually the host becomes very sick and perishes ... That the parasites no longer have a host isn’t in the calculus.  Parasites have no conscience and do not plan ahead.  But we can and should plan ahead and see the current sickness for what it is.  It is an existential battle for life as we know it.  The parasites – the totalitarians and their allies – are among us, and the host has precious little time left.

Sobering words, but he makes a strong case.  Recommended reading.

# # #

The anonymous blogger at 'Arms Are The Mark Of A Free Man' brings us an interesting article examining the involvement of the medical profession in gun control efforts.  He points out that they mostly have as little expertise in the field of firearms as most of us have in the field of medicine.

Firehand (with tongue firmly in cheek) makes a similar point with a fun graphic, concluding that 'Children are much better suited to crew served weapons'.

# # #

Sean Linnane reminds us about 'The Greatest Raid of All', a British naval and commando assault on St. Nazaire dockyard in 1942.  He links to an hour-long documentary about the assault.  Highly recommended for all military history buffs.

# # #

American Mercenary analyzes the economics of coffee, particularly for preppers.  Amusing and interesting.

# # #

That's all for this two-week stretch.  I'll try to get back to the normal weekly schedule next weekend.

Peter

A narrow escape and a dramatic rescue

Nautically-minded readers will be aware that the latest Clipper Round The World Yacht Race is under way at present, with much of the fleet having arrived in San Francisco after completing the 6th leg of the race from Qingdao, China.  It's a unique event, with a dozen identical yachts supplied by the organizers and crews sponsored by various businesses, groups and other organizations.  You can read more about it at the race Web site.

Needless to say, there are dangers involved in pushing relatively small sailing craft to the very limits of their design, performance and safety limits in a race around the world.  Andrew Taylor found that out the hard way at the end of last month when he fell overboard while changing a sail.  You can read the details here.  His recovery from the sea was filmed by a crewman, and makes dramatic viewing. I recommend watching it in full-screen mode.

Once safely back on board, he spoke about his experience.  You can tell from his voice how shaken he is.  He's a very lucky man to be alive.

Kudos to the crew for locating him, just over an hour after he went overboard.  He was in the water for about an hour and a half.  The weather was pretty rough, as the video demonstrates, with 35-knot winds.

On arrival in San Francisco a couple of days ago, Andrew was taken to hospital.  He's suffering from very deep bruising in his leg, which may affect his chances of completing the race - there's no point in his trying to act as a crew member when he's not up to the physical demands of the job.  Regardless, let's hope he makes a full recovery.

Peter

Combat UAV's are getting bigger

It's been interesting to watch the progression in size, both upwards and downwards, of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's, also known as 'drones') over the past couple of decades.  They've gone from small vehicle- or ship-launched units (e.g. the RQ-2 Pioneer) all the way down to hummingbird-sized models, with talk of insect-sized successors to come;  and from drones based on small private planes all the way to something with a wingspan greater than a Boeing 737 (the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk).

A recent test flight in France gave us the opportunity to see Dassault's nEUROn UAV flying in formation ahead of the same company's Rafale strike fighter and its Falcon 7X business jet.  Note how close in size the UAV is to the fighter aircraft (the former's wingspan is actually greater than the latter's, although its fuselage is shorter).

Courtesy of Aviation Week, here's a rather pleasing video of how they formed up and took the picture.  I suggest watching it in full-screen mode.

It can't be long before UAV's grow even bigger.  After all, the US X-47B is already considerably larger and heavier than the nEUROn, and its successors aren't likely to shrink!

Peter

A self-contained shipboard community

A user at Imgur has put up a photo essay about an in-depth tour of the cruise liner 'Allure Of The Seas'.  She's one of the largest passenger vessels ever constructed, almost a quarter of a million tons by the net tonnage standard, carrying up to 6,296 passengers and 2,384 crew.  That's the population of a not-too-small town.

The pictures show everything from the above-deck recreation facilities to behind-the-scenes operating, catering and storage facilities in the bowels of the ship.  Here are a few examples, greatly reduced in size to fit this blog.

30 feet of lobster!

The dairy storage room - 3 days' supplies!

Engine room controls

There are many more pictures at the link.  Click on any of them to see a larger version.  Interesting stuff.

Peter

A quartet in (dis)harmony

This video clip is doing the rounds on Facebook and the blogs at present.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Musical one-upmanship at its best!




Peter

Your hotel: clean, comfortable rooms - and gunfire

Sometimes the quality of your fellow guests at a hotel leaves something to be desired, as this video clip demonstrates.  It's from security cameras at the Roosevelt Motor Inn in Philadelphia.

You can read more about the incident here, and see video of an earlier armed robbery at the same location.

Yet another good reason to be armed on your travels . . . and to choose a better sort of hotel!

Peter

Dogs at their most (dis)graceful

I had to laugh at a collection of photographs published by the Huffington Post.  They titled it '26 Majestic Dogs Who Totally Redefine Perfection'.  I think 'redefine' is the operative word, judging by these examples.

There are many more at the link.  Hilarious!

Peter

Icecubes, anyone?

Here's one for my readers in the Frozen North, otherwise known as the Great Lakes, where I understand icebreakers are still having to cut channels for shipping.  Here's a video clip of an icebreaker carving through ocean ice, filmed by members of its crew who disembarked and went ahead of it in order to film it passing them.  It's fascinating to hear the ice crunching beneath its bow as it passes.

Like the man said, "That's cool!" (Very!)

Peter

Thoughts on the Pennsylvania high school stabbing

By now I'm sure everyone's heard about the student who stabbed more than 20 of his peers at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, PA.  Two things spring to mind when thinking about this tragedy.

First, why on earth did the students scream and shout and run about like chickens with their heads cut off?  Have we raised and schooled and socialized and 'educated' our children to be wimps?  When I was in high school, if anyone had started slashing wildly with a pair of knives it would have taken only seconds before he was deluged with every satchel, suitcase and book-bag in sight, followed by every nearby able-bodied male 'piling on' as violently as possible.  There would have been many fewer casualties before the attacker was subdued.  (I'm not exaggerating - I saw a couple of incidents of naked aggression that were dealt with very effectively by fellow students before teachers could arrive.)  I can't for the life of me understand why high school students would allow themselves to be victimized in this fashion.  I can only assume that the non-stop school system propaganda against normal male attitudes and aggression (and yes, it may not be politically correct to say so, but most adolescent males have more than their fair share of aggression) has finally had its desired effect.

You know, if my son, whom I'd raised according to my understanding of what it means to be a man, came home and confessed to me that he'd hung back out of fear for his own safety while he watched a madman slash and stab a girl in front of him . . . I honestly don't know how I'd react, but I promise you this, it wouldn't be pretty.  A man doesn't behave like that.  Ever.  If that makes you call me a Neanderthal or uncivilized, so be it.  That's who I am, and I'm not about to change.  (Readers are free to disagree in Comments if they please.)

The second thing is that this incident proves yet again the futility of trying to control objects in order to prevent crime.  If you ban guns, criminals will disobey the ban.  If they can't get a gun, they'll turn to other weapons like knives.  If you ban knives, the next step is spears, or baseball bats, or 2x4's, or whatever.  The weapon used in the crime is largely irrelevant.  The criminal is the deciding factor in whether or not it will be committed.

• When a drunk driver hits and kills a pedestrian, we charge him - not his vehicle.
• When a student stabs more than 20 of his peers, we charge him - not his knives.
• When a gunman shoots another person, we charge him - not his firearm.

I've not heard any calls to ban or control knives after this tragedy.  That would be so stupid as to invite nationwide ridicule, after all.  However, we continue to hear calls for 'gun control' after almost every incident in which a firearm is used to commit a crime.  Isn't it time that those concerned acknowledged that such calls have nothing to do with crime, but everything to do with their desire to control us?  Knife control would have done little or nothing to stop this incident - after all, the perpetrator allegedly took kitchen knives from his own home.  In the same way, gun control will do little or nothing to stop crimes committed with guns.

Peter

Thoughts on combat weapon sights for civilians

EDITED TO ADD:  Due to a few e-mails from readers concerned that even the concept of a 'combat weapon sight' for civilians, and the use of a rifle for defensive purposes, were 'over the top' and verged on paranoia, I'd like to explain why this post was written.

For a start, there are certain situations where US civilians have used (and are using) rifles in defensive situations.  To name only a few:

• Ranchers and farmers along our border with Mexico are facing a deluge of illegal immigrants, who are destroying fences, poaching farm animals, and breaking into homes to steal whatever they can - sometimes threaten the occupants too.
• Farmers in the plains face difficulties dealing with predators who menace their animals.  They carry a rifle in their farm pickups as a matter of routine.  Some of them also face threats from cattle thieves, who'll try to round up a few head, load them into a truck, and be gone before anyone notices them.
• During crises such as the Los Angeles riots of 1992 (referenced in the article below), the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, etc., more than a few city-dwellers made use of rifles and shotguns for extended periods to defend themselves, their homes and their businesses.  I'm sure there will be similar crises in future.

Other countries have also experienced situations of civil unrest and/or terrorist conflict, during which rifles and shotguns have been (sometimes routinely) used by civilians to defend themselves.  I have personal experience of this.

That's why this article was written - to address the admittedly limited, but nevertheless real problem of civilians needing to use a long gun for self-defense, and discuss how best to aim it under the circumstances we're likely to face (which are usually governed by different legal considerations from those affecting military and law enforcement personnel.)

I hope those considerations make it clear that this article is not written from a ninja-wannabe point of view - it's as practical as I can make it.

# # #

I had occasion to exchange a few e-mails with former shooting students of mine, who are looking into various sighting options for long guns as they grow older and their eyesight deteriorates.  I'm in the same boat, so I know all about the problem . . .

*Sigh*

Anyway, we went through the list of options available.  If iron sights are problematic, a red dot sight or RDS (also known as a reflector or reflex sight, particularly in more expensive models) can offer a good short- to medium-range alternative.  In military service they've produced more and faster hits than iron sights, and their battery life has been greatly extended;  but military sights are built to be very rugged, and priced to match (usually in the high hundreds to low thousands of dollars per sight).  Unfortunately, cheaper RDS's are often prone to breaking down, and some models consume batteries very quickly.  (There's at least one notable lower-cost exception, the Bushnell Trophy TRS-25 (shown below).  I currently own 6 of them, using them on both handguns and long guns.  It's not an Aimpoint, but it's nevertheless excellent value for money, IMHO.)

Furthermore, the red dot or triangle or other reticle shape can 'fade out' in bright sunlight, making aiming literally a hit-or-miss affair.  Conversely, at night the reticle can be so bright as to 'wash out' the view through the sight, calling for a rapid adjustment to a lower intensity level.  If people are shooting at you while you try to do this, the delay might be more than merely counter-productive.

However, civilians have a particular legal problem.  Military personnel in a combat zone don't have to worry too much about target identification.  If they have shots fired at them, and see movement in the place from which the shots came, they can (and usually will) fire back at that movement without hesitation.  (Yes, yes, I know there are usually Rules of Engagement telling them to make sure that they only shoot at a clearly identifiable enemy who's visibly armed, yadda, yadda, yadda.  If you believe they're going to stick to those rules in the heat of a close-range engagement at night, then you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.  BTDT.)  Theoretically law enforcement personnel don't have the right to open fire on suspects indiscriminately, but in practice they sometimes do so.  (Just look at the three innocent victims shot up by police during the Dorner manhunt last year, or the nine - nine!!! - bystanders injured by police gunfire in a single incident in New York City in 2012.  There are many other examples.)  You'll note that very seldom do the officers involved suffer seriously negative consequences.  The badge protects its own.

Civilians don't have the protection of a uniform to minimize our troubles with the law if we shoot the wrong person.  We have to clearly identify our target and confirm that he's definitely a threat before we shoot him, or we're going to be neck-deep in the proverbial brown substance.  RDS's (typically unmagnified or with relatively low magnification, usually no more than 2x-4x) won't do much to help us identify a target.  If it's nighttime, in a neighborhood filled with contrasting streetlights and deep shadows, or a back yard veiled in darkness, how are you going to be able to say for sure who shot at you?  Even in daylight, if a shooter is a few dozen or a few score yards away in a crowd, how are you going to be able to pick out of the mob the one or two individuals who pose a direct and immediate threat to you?  (Think of this in the context of the Los Angeles riots of 1992 - see here and here for some first-hand accounts and video recordings.)  You can't just shoot into the mass of people - you'll be charged with attempted murder, even if you don't hit anyone.  What if someone's taking pot-shots at passersby from the window of an apartment block?  Which window?  If there are several dozen people at several dozen windows, which one has the gun?  How can you tell at a distance?  (Obviously, you should be hunting for cover before you try to find out, but the principle remains.)

You won't have time to reach for a pair of binoculars to identify your attacker, then put them down, pick up your rifle, and focus on your target.  While you're doing that, he'll still be shooting at you;  alternatively, he'll be 'getting out of Dodge' while the going's good.  You need a sight that can shorten your decision cycle;  help you identify your target more clearly and make the decision to shoot or not to shoot as quickly as possible.  This is where the telescopic sight comes into its own.  A good-quality variable-power scope can be lightweight, optically sharp, and give you the ability to see much more clearly at a distance by dialing up the power.  At night a quality scope will transmit available light reasonably well, enabling you to see into all but the darkest shadows with greater clarity than you'll be able to achieve with the naked eye alone.  Furthermore, it doesn't have batteries that can go flat at the worst possible moment (unless your scope has an illuminated reticle for nighttime use - a useful accessory under certain conditions, but not an essential one).

I accept that a telescopic sight's crosshairs are less quickly acquired visually than the dot or other reticle shape of a RDS, particularly in low light conditions.  On the other hand, I submit that for civilian use the advantages of a telescopic sight outweigh those of a RDS in all scenarios except close-range rapid fire against multiple opponents - a scenario we're most unlikely to face under normal circumstances.  You can train to use a telescopic sight effectively in the latter scenario as well, setting it to its lowest power and using it more as a 'tube sight' than a telescope.  (If you use see-through scope mounts or rings you can employ your long gun's iron sights at close range if you wish, reserving the telescopic sight for longer ranges.)  If the light's too low to use either telescopic or iron sights, you probably shouldn't be shooting at anything you can't see anyway.  If you can't clearly identify a threat, and defend that identification and your actions in court if necessary, you shouldn't be shooting.  Period.

Which telescopic sight is best for the purpose?  Everyone will have their own answer to that question.  Mine is currently the Nikon ProStaff 2-7x32 variable-power scope (shown below).

They're on my .30-30 lever-action rifles and two 5.56x45mm. carbines, and will go on a couple more rifles as and when I can afford to buy additional examples.  They serve my needs very well, and I highly recommend this particular model as excellent value for money.  They're very clear and sharp, low-power enough for use at close range in urban settings yet high-power enough for use out to the effective range of the cartridge.  (I also recommend the Nikon ProStaff 3-9x40 scope with bullet-drop-compensating reticle, if you don't mind a slightly larger and heavier scope.)

Finally, a laser sight can be a very useful addition to a fighting rifle.  The trouble is, if there's enough smoke or dust in the air the beam will be visible to the naked eye, pointing out not only its target but also where it came from - in other words, your location.  I therefore prefer not to use lasers unless the circumstances are such that concealing my own position no longer matters.  At a time like that, I'll take every advantage I can get!

Peter

If you love your car, don't watch this . . .

. . . because it (or something like it) will probably eat your car one day!

There's more information here about the Red Giant series of metal shredders (and several more video clips).

I wonder what type of steel those rotating teeth are made of?  They certainly make car bodies and engine blocks look weak by comparison.  Will any better-informed readers please tell us more in Comments?

Peter

Timeline to the next war?

Roberta posed an interesting question this morning, and answered it.

Y'know what the upper-limit boundary to the time between really honkin' big wars is?  The lifespan of the participants in the previous one.  Seriously, check your history books.  Oh, you'll get a few outliers and there's regional variations, but about the time the bulk of the guys who fought amidst massive loss of life are dead, another opportunity to look at people's inside on a large scale comes along.

There's more at the link.

Earthbound Misfit picked up the ball.

War is a messy business. A war between nations who possess nuclear weapons and the means to attack with them anywhere on Earth may turn out very badly, indeed. And then, it is not uncommon for famine to follow war like a ragged stepchild. If nuclear weapons are widely used, a global famine is almost a certainty, a famine that no amount of "prepping" will ensure survival from its effects. Not to mention that when things break down like that, disease is almost certain.

But the Russians have almost forgotten the suffering of the Great Patriotic War, suffering that was severe enough to deter the leaders of the Soviet Union from getting into a general war. The Chinese have almost forgotten the massive suffering of their civil war and the second Sino-Japanese War. As for our own warhawks, the oceanic moats have kept the effects of war away from our soil for 150 years (200 years since foreign armies trod on our soil). But the oceans will not keep ICBMs away. If nuclear weapons are indeed used, only a starry-eyed fool would believe that there would be any distinction drawn between "tactical" and "strategic" nuclear uses.

It takes all sides to a potential conflict to keep the peace and work things out. It only takes one side to start a war.

Again, more at the link.

I think both of them are absolutely correct.  There are so few people in our society today with personal, halitosis-range experience of battle, bloodshed and death that to most of us, war's become more of a sanitized Hollywood entertainment image than the horrific ghastliness it really is.  Relative to the whole of the society in which we live, very few people have witnessed a friend killed in battle;  very few people have had a friend raped and murdered in a conflict without borders;  very few people have lived through extended civil strife, subject to all the hazards and horrors of that environment;  very few people remember what it means, and what it costs, to live in the shattered ruins of a nation - for that matter, an entire continent.

In our ignorance of what those things actually mean - actually feel like to experience - we're blind, as a society, to the reality of war.  It's all too easy for the demagogues to whip up emotions and feelings to get the war they want.  As William Randolph Hearst said to one of his correspondents before the Spanish-American War, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war".  He did - and the same tactics are now in play in Russia versus Ukraine, and China versus Japan, and the USA versus radical Islam.  We haven't learned much from history at all.

What's even scarier is the blindness of those who so glibly talk about armed resistance to the US government if and/or when their disagreements with it become too great for them to bear.  They utterly fail to realize the extent of the suffering that would be unleashed in this country if their strident calls became reality.  The South was devastated by the Civil War, and took generations to recover.  If a new civil war breaks out, expect the same thing to happen over far greater areas of the country - and expect the carnage to be beyond your worst nightmares.  With so much of our population now urbanized, utterly dependent on modern infrastructure, any disruption would undoubtedly cause real hardship within days and spark massive unrest, leading to further casualties and destruction.  It would become a spiral of violence that would be almost impossible to stop until it had run its course.

War is sometimes necessary, but only under the most extreme provocation.  It's the last resort when all other means have failed - and even then, only when the alternative to war is too catastrophic to contemplate.  Unfortunately, too few people today are capable of recognizing that from experience.

Peter

Worker FAIL! - the ultimate collection?

Received via e-mail.

As my buddy Lawdog would say, "Gigglesnort!"




Peter

A fascinating look behind the scenes at Amazon.com

Two articles about Amazon.com have stirred my curiosity in recent days.  They're interesting enough in and of themselves, but even more so in the light of a discussion about Amazon - in comparison to Google and other hi-tech firms - that was never supposed to be revealed in public.  Let's look at the articles first, then at the 'behind-the-scenes' view.

The first article, from Forbes, is headlined 'Inside Amazon's Idea Machine: How Bezos Decodes Customers'.  Here's a brief excerpt.

More than a century ago another legendary retailer, Chicago’s Marshall Field, championed the fatalist’s slogan: “The customer is always right.” Bezos, perhaps more than anyone, has taken that mantra into the digital era, incrementally cracking one of the business’s great mysteries: figuring what customers want before the cash register rings and then making those insights pay off. In an era when high-flying tech companies outdo each other with worker perks, no-frills Bezos is proving the potency of another model: coddling his 164 million customers, not his 56,000 employees.

Jeff Bezos’ managers at Amazon find him formidable enough. But the figure that overwhelms their lives goes by the internal nickname “the empty chair.” Bezos periodically leaves one seat open at a conference table and informs all attendees that they should consider that seat occupied by their customer, “the most important person in the room.”

There's more at the link.

The second article, at Teleread, builds on the Forbes article along similar lines:  'For Jeff Bezos, customer convenience is king'.

Every time Amazon does anything out of the ordinary, pundits are quick to jump all over it and claim the company has jumped the shark and the End Times are nigh. They said that back when Amazon first came out with the Kindle—which proceeded to revolutionize the struggling e-book market and give Amazon such monopoly power in the e-book world that the big six publishers had to collude illegally to get it to stop. And they just keep saying it. What are they thinking—that if they keep on predicting Amazon will go down the tubes, sooner or later they’re bound to be right?

As a company, Amazon is doing amazingly well. It might not be showing much of a profit in terms of earnings per share, but it just keeps on getting bigger and bigger, pouring all of its money back into further development so it can get even bigger than that.

What, do people seriously think Amazon runs at a razor-thin margin because it can’t earn enough money to make a profit? Does anyone really believe that in any sense other than wishful thinking? If that were the case, would Amazon be such a problem to all its competitors and some of its suppliers at this point? If Jeff Bezos ever wants to turn a huge “profit,” all he has to do is flip a switch to slow down building out for a while, and suddenly Amazon will have more money left over than it knows what to do with.

Again, more at the link.

How does Amazon do it?  Part of the answer was revealed - inadvertently - by an information technology specialist, Steve Yegge, who used to work at Amazon and is now at Google.  He published a major-league rant on an internal network at Google, intending it for colleagues only, but mistakenly published it for all the world to see.  He took it down almost at once, but a colleague preserved it and has re-posted it.  It's seriously interesting for technology workers and IT specialists.  Here's a very brief excerpt from his very long (and sometimes profane) rant.

I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I've been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies -- an impression that has been reinforced almost daily -- is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it's a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It's pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly.

. . .

But there's one thing [Amazon does] really really well that pretty much makes up for ALL of their political, philosophical and technical screw-ups.

. . .

Amazon [has] transformed culturally into a company that thinks about everything in a services-first fashion. It is now fundamental to how they approach all designs, including internal designs for stuff that might never see the light of day externally ... There are without question pros and cons to the SOA approach, and some of the cons are pretty long. But overall it's the right thing because SOA-driven design enables Platforms.

That's what Bezos was up to with his edict, of course. He didn't (and doesn't) care even a tiny bit about the well-being of the teams, nor about what technologies they use, nor in fact any detail whatsoever about how they go about their business unless they happen to be screwing up. But Bezos realized long before the vast majority of Amazonians that Amazon needs to be a platform.

You wouldn't really think that an online bookstore needs to be an extensible, programmable platform. Would you?

Well, the first big thing Bezos realized is that the infrastructure they'd built for selling and shipping books and sundry could be transformed an excellent repurposable computing platform. So now they have the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, and the Amazon Elastic MapReduce, and the Amazon Relational Database Service, and a whole passel' o' other services browsable at aws.amazon.com. These services host the backends for some pretty successful companies, reddit being my personal favorite of the bunch.

The other big realization he had was that he can't always build the right thing. I think Larry Tesler might have struck some kind of chord in Bezos when he said his mom couldn't use the goddamn website. It's not even super clear whose mom he was talking about, and doesn't really matter, because nobody's mom can use the goddamn website. In fact I myself find the website disturbingly daunting, and I worked there for over half a decade. I've just learned to kinda defocus my eyes and concentrate on the million or so pixels near the center of the page above the fold.

I'm not really sure how Bezos came to this realization -- the insight that he can't build one product and have it be right for everyone. But it doesn't matter, because he gets it. There's actually a formal name for this phenomenon. It's called Accessibility, and it's the most important thing in the computing world.

The. Most. Important. Thing.

More at the link.

In a follow-up post, Mr. Yegge acknowledged that he hadn't intended to publish his rant for public viewing, but commented that Google hadn't acted against him in any way for his criticism of their way of doing things.  He offered some very interesting insights into Jeff Bezos as a person, and as a business leader.  Again, here's a short excerpt.

Bezos is so goddamned smart that you have to turn it into a game for him or he’ll be bored and annoyed with you. That was my first realization about him. Who knows how smart he was before he became a billionaire -- let’s just assume it was “really frigging smart”, since he did build Amazon from scratch. But for years he’s had armies of people taking care of everything for him. He doesn’t have to do anything at all except dress himself in the morning and read presentations all day long. So he’s really, REALLY good at reading presentations. He’s like the Franz Liszt of sight-reading presentations.

So you have to start tearing out whole paragraphs, or even pages, to make it interesting for him. He will fill in the gaps himself without missing a beat. And his brain will have less time to get annoyed with the slow pace of your brain.

I mean, imagine what it would be like to start off as an incredibly smart person, arguably a first-class genius, and then somehow wind up in a situation where you have a general’s view of the industry battlefield for ten years. Not only do you have more time than anyone else, and access to more information than anyone else, you also have this long-term eagle-eye perspective that only a handful of people in the world enjoy.

In some sense you wouldn’t even be human anymore. People like Jeff are better regarded as hyper-intelligent aliens with a tangential interest in human affairs.

But how do you prepare a presentation for a giant-brained alien? Well, here’s my second realization: He will outsmart you. Knowing everything about your subject is only a first-line defense for you. It’s like armor that he’ll eat through in the first few minutes. He is going to have at least one deep insight about the subject, right there on the spot, and it’s going to make you look like a complete buffoon.

Trust me folks, I saw this happen time and again, for years. Jeff Bezos has all these incredibly intelligent, experienced domain experts surrounding him at huge meetings, and on a daily basis he thinks of shit that they never saw coming. It’s a guaranteed facepalm fest.

More at the link.

I found all four articles fascinating.  Read together, they offer a rare glimpse into the fast-moving world of Internet commerce, and how businesses have to rebuild themselves in new and non-traditional ways if they're to survive in the modern world.  All four are highly recommended reading.

Peter