Thursday, August 27, 2015

Like A Real Factory

Yesterday was a milestone for ScopeRoller: I had two operatives at work simultaneously.  The teenager who lives across the road was unsure if he would be available, so I hired one of my readers to help.  One was turning acetal down to diameter on the lathe, while the other was drilling, tapping,  and assembling orders.  At some point, I am going to have to start collecting and paying payrioll taxes.  I've never done that before and I am not entirely sure of what to do.  There's a couple at church who used to run a cookware shop, and I will ask them.

I had planned to start making the interior part of the design by turning aluminum rod to size, then cutting 30 degree slices of it with the chop saw, but my first experience trying to do that makes  think I will stick with acetal.  Blades won't last.  I think I will also upgrade my lathe to CNC.  I can tell the computer to remove .010" per pass, which on acetal will be quite risk-free.  Start it up and come back when it is down to the right diameter.

Fun With Makefiles

I have stuff  in two directories, vhal and milltop.  I want a dependency on a .h and .c file in the vhal directory.

DEPS=../vhal/vhal.h ../vhal/parseargs.c

all: milltop ../vhal/parseargs.c $(INCL)vhal.h milltop.ngc

milltop: milltop.c $(DEPS)
    $(CC) -o $@ -g milltop.c -I$(INCL)

milltop.ngc: milltop
    ./milltop -mr0.25 -pt3.203 -f3.0 -w0.522 -l3.055 -h2.686 -mof 0.25 >milltop.ngc
Why does it think that there is nothing after the -I argument?  Once upon a time, I would have made milltop dependent on milltop.c, vhal.h, and parseargs.o but I am not seeing the %.o: %.c dependency rules in example Makefiles.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

More Revisions to My Milling

I am going to revise my plan to 3 in/min feed rate, which is just a command line parameter change, and add a new parameter, mill overlap factor, which controls how much of the mill diameter I move on each pass.  Right now it is hard coded at 33%.  I am making this a parameter so that I can reduce to 25%.  My goal is to make this so foolproof that I can start it up and feel safe with it unattended.

A Twofer

Identity politics is nasty business.  It was nasty when Democrats asserted that this was a white man's republic, and it isn't any nicer now that other identity groups are preeminent.  From August 26, 2015 Daily Mail:
'Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…'

'What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.'

'As for Dylann Roof? You [redacted]! You want a race war [redacted]? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …[redacted]!!!”

At the same time, he professes a deep respect for other mass shooters like Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.

'Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin’.
He goes on to say that he has faced both racial and sexual discrimination as a black, gay man and that he was just waiting to explode.

I guess same-sex marriage was not enough.

UPDATE: As my wife pointed out, the left keeps banging the drum with the race card, and then gets upset that they provoke gun violence.  "If you keep saying there are monsters in the castle, eventually the peasants will show up with torches."

A Question For My Readers

Why is burning thec American flag or making porn that appears to involve children protected as free speech because it is expressive conduct, but refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake is not?

Why Worrying About Iran Getting the Bomb Is Silly

From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

What would happen if an 800-kiloton nuclear warhead detonated above midtown Manhattan?

Why Peer Review Does Not Mean Much

I have always found that when it comes to history journals, peer review means "conforms to the prejudices and assumptions of the status quo" which is why Michael Bellesiles had no problem getting outright lies published.  Now we see bigger problems.  From August 18, 2015 Washington
Made-up identities assigned to fake e-mail addresses. Real identities stolen for fraudulent reviews. Study authors who write glowing reviews of their own research, then pass them off as an independent report.

These are the tactics of peer review manipulators, an apparently growing problem in the world of academic publishing.

Peer review is supposed to be the pride of the rigorous academic publishing process. Journals get every paper reviewed and approved by experts in the field, ensuring that problematic research doesn’t make it to print.

But increasingly journals are finding out that those supposedly authoritative checks are being rigged.
In the latest episode of the fake peer review phenomenon, one of the world’s largest academic publishers, Springer, has retracted 64 articles from 10 of its journals after discovering that their reviews were linked to fake e-mail addresses. The announcement comes nine months after 43 studies were retracted by BioMed Central (one of Springer’s imprints) for the same reason.