After 14 years of building up the Alibaba Group into one of the biggest Internet companies in the world, Jack Ma is taking a step back from the chief executive role of the Chinese e-commerce giant.
But Mr. Ma isn’t leaving entirely; he will hold on to the role of executive chairman, he told DealBook in an interview on Monday. He plans to name his successor when his title change becomes effective on May 10.
He won’t be the only one to hand over some of the company’s reins. Mr. Ma said that most of Alibaba’s leaders “born in the 1960s” will pass their leadership responsibilities to younger colleagues, born in the 1970s and 1980s.
“We believe that they understand the future better than us, and then have a better chance of seizing the future,” he wrote in an e-mail to employees explaining his change in duties.
The shift is the biggest change yet at Alibaba in some time, as it continues to ready itself for the next chapter of its existence. Last week, the company said that it was cleaving itself into 25 smaller divisions — to give managers more flexibility.
And it follows the transformative deal that Alibaba struck with Yahoo last year, in which the Chinese company agreed to buy back about half of the stake in itself held by Yahoo, its American partner. Alibaba had long sought to repurchase the shares to help regain control over its corporate destiny.
For Mr. Ma, the decision to step back from day-to-day management was borne of several reasons. One of them was personal: the job is increasingly tiring.
“I’m 48. I’m no longer young enough to run such a fast-growing business,” Mr. Ma said in the interview. “When I was 35, I was so energetic and fresh-thinking. I had nothing to worry about.”
Come May, Mr. Ma will slide into the role of executive chairman, which he said would let him focus on broad strategic issues, as well as corporate development and social responsibility.
It is a move that the entrepreneur said had been in the works for some time. He has been training “a few candidates” among the younger generation for the chief executive position.
Speculation about who will take over is likely to focus on the heads of Alibaba’s biggest businesses, including Alibaba.com, an online market for small businesses; Taobao, an enormous consumer shopping site; and Alipay, an online payment platform.
Mr. Ma’s early departure will give his replacement time to grow into the role, Mr. Ma said. That could be important when Alibaba finally goes public, sometime down the road. Mr. Ma added that the exact timing or other details of an initial offering haven’t been determined.
Until then, Mr. Ma will remain a powerful figure within the company he founded.
“I will still be very active,” he said. “It is impossible for me to retire.”
WASHINGTON — For all the controversy over President Obama's choice for Defense secretary, many of Chuck Hagel's most outspoken critics were for the former Nebraska senator before they were against him.
In 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who forged a close bond with Hagel over their shared service in Vietnam and penchant for bucking the Republican establishment, said, "I'd be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity."
In 2007, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged that many of Hagel's dire predictions about the Iraq war had come true. He praised Hagel at an Omaha fundraiser as "one of the premier foreign policy voices" and "one of the giants in the United States Senate."
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) worked with Hagel for years on efforts to ease the embargo against Cuba and promote trade policies to help Midwestern farmers. He tolerated playful ribbing from Hagel when the University of Nebraska beat Kansas schools in football.
Now, McCain says he worries about his fellow Republican's "worldview." McConnell said, "I'm going to take a look at all the things that Chuck has said over the years and review that … in terms of his qualifications to lead our nation's military." And Roberts has said flatly that he won't back his onetime friend for the Pentagon post, citing "a lot of concern about Chuck."
Several factors are behind the opposition to Hagel, including the anger he caused among many Republicans by criticizing the George W. Bush administration's Iraq policies and by endorsing some Democrats for office.
At least in public, the opposition to his nomination has focused on remarks he's made on Israel and Iran, particularly one 2006 interview in which he said the "Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" in Congress. Critics have objected to his referring to the lobbying as "Jewish" rather than "pro-Israel."
Supporters note that Israeli leaders haven't voiced any such worries about Hagel, who has often called Israel "a close friend and ally." They say he's been the victim of a U.S. political landscape that has become not only more partisan but less tolerant of criticism of Israel. Particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, unwavering support for Israeli policies has become a litmus test over the last decade.
"The debate about the U.S. relationship with Israel has certainly moved to the right," said Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who served alongside Hagel in the Senate until 2001. "You could oppose settlements in the 1990s," he said, referring to Israelis building on land beyond Israel's 1968 borders. "Not anymore."
A review of Hagel's history shows a worldview, particularly on the Middle East, that does not fit easily into current political divisions.
Shaped by a tour in Vietnam — where mine explosions left him with burns and shrapnel lodged in his chest — Hagel, 66, has long been a reliable if sometimes blunt voice for caution in using military force. He has called for engaging with America's enemies instead of isolating them and for a healthy but restrained defense budget.
He first ran for the Senate in 1996 on a pledge to increase defense spending, which had been cut sharply after the end of the Cold War. By the time he ran for his second term, defense spending had begun to soar in the buildup after the Sept. 11 attacks. In recent years he's called the Pentagon budget "bloated."
Hagel had been in the Senate barely a year when, during a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1998, he cited a "perception in the Arab world that we've tilted way too far toward Israel in the Middle East peace process."
But at the same time he was building ties to Israeli leaders. In December 2000, a surge of deadly violence threatened President Clinton's bid to seal an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal in the final weeks of his presidency. At the request of the incoming Bush administration, Hagel carried an urgent message to Israeli leaders.
In a private meeting at the Israeli defense ministry, Hagel assured embattled Prime Minister Ehud Barak that Bush would support the peace deal if he signed it. It was a crucial promise from the American president-elect, who was then little known in the Middle East. In the end, Palestinian opposition killed the peace bid.
Martin Indyk, then-U.S. ambassador to Israel and the only other person in the meeting, said Hagel was "very sensitive, sympathetic and most of all supportive. He helped to calm Barak."
In recent years, Hagel has rejected unilateral sanctions against Iran, arguing that they only inflame anger in the Muslim world, but has said he supports sanctions imposed in concert with U.S. allies. He has argued against military action to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon but, in a September opinion article in the Washington Post, called for "keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force."
That skepticism about sanctions has a long history with Hagel. In 2001, he was one of two senators to vote "no" on renewing unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya.
"Somebody has to give another point of view here," Hagel said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing in which he questioned whether the sanctions worked.
But at the same hearing, he invoked Israel's needs, saying, "I don't think you bring more security to Israel by this kind of policy — which, again, unless you can tell me otherwise, has not produced any results."
In a 2006 speech at the Brookings Institution, Hagel criticized U.S. boycotts of talks with Hamas, Iran, Syria and other foes, saying that approach impeded efforts to end crises in the region.
"I don't know how the world has gotten better" by the U.S. refusal to talk, he said. "Things have gotten worse by any measure. And so it tells me that we'd better take some serious review of our current policy."
Many of Hagel's words echo those of Obama, who, like many Israeli military leaders, is said to be reluctant to launch a military strike on Iran. Obama has imposed tough sanctions on Iran but resisted more severe measures pushed by some in Congress because they could weaken a broad coalition of nations — including China — that backs the measures currently in place.
Hagel's supporters say that in his two terms in the Senate — he now serves as chairman of the Atlantic Council, a think tank that promotes multilateralism — he was a consistent realist.
"The principles he came away with from Vietnam are still there," said Charlyne Berens, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln journalism professor who wrote a 2006 biography on Hagel. "He's been saying these things for more than a decade."
Just imagine if all the applications and services you saw or heard about at CES last week had to be designed to be “wiretap ready” before they could be offered on the market. Before regular people like you or me could use them.
Yet that’s a real possibility. For the last few years, the FBI’s been warning that its surveillance capabilities are “going dark,” because internet communications technologies — including devices that connect to the internet — are getting too difficult to intercept with current law enforcement tools. So the FBI wants a more wiretap-friendly internet, and legislation to mandate it will likely be proposed this year.
But a better way to protect privacy and security on the internet may be for the FBI to get better at breaking into computers.
Whoa, what? Let us explain.
Whether we like them or not, wiretaps — legally authorized ones only, of course — are an important law enforcement tool. But mandatory wiretap backdoors in internet services would invite at least as much new crime as it could help solve.
Especially because we’re knee deep in what can only be called a cybersecurity crisis. Criminals, rival nation states, and rogue hackers routinely seek out and exploit vulnerabilities in our computers and networks — much faster than we can fix them. In this cybersecurity landscape, wiretapping interfaces are particularly juicy targets.
Every connection, every interface increases our exposure and makes criminals’ jobs easier.
Matt Blaze directs the Distributed Systems Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, where he studies cryptography and secure systems. Prior to joining Penn, he was a distinguished member of technical staff at AT&T Bell Labs. He can be found on Twitter at mattblaze.
Susan Landau is currently a Guggenheim Scholar. She was a distinguished engineer at Sun Microsystems. Landau is the author of Surveillance or Security? The Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technologies.
We’ve Been Here Before
Two decades ago, the FBI complained it was having trouble tapping the then-latest cellphones and digital telephone switches. After extensive FBI lobbying, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994, mandating that all telephone switches include FBI-approved wiretapping capabilities.
CALEA was justifiably controversial, not least because its requirement for “backdoors” across our communications infrastructure seemed like a security nightmare: How could we keep criminals and foreign spies from exploiting weaknesses in the new wiretapping features? Would we even be able to detect them when they did?
Those fears were soon borne out. In 2004, a mysterious someone — the case was never solved — hacked the wiretap backdoors of a Greek cellular switch to listen in on senior government officials … including the prime minister.
Think this could only happen abroad? Some years ago, the U.S. National Security Agency discovered that every telephone switch for sale to the Department of Defense had security vulnerabilities in their mandated wiretap implementations. Every. Single. One.
Given these risks, you might think now’s a good time to scale back CALEA and harden our communications infrastructure against attack.
But the FBI wants to do the opposite. They want to massively expand the wiretap mandate beyond phone services to internet-based services: instant messaging systems, video conferencing, e-mail, smartphone apps, and so on.
Yet on the internet, the threats — and consequences of compromise — are even more serious than with telephone switches. Not only would wiretap mandates put a damper on innovation, but the FBI is effectively choosing making it easier to solve some crimes by opening the door to other crimes.
Are these really the only options we have? No.
The FBI wants to massively expand the wiretap mandate beyond phone services to internet-based services.
Bugs Are Backdoors, Too
If it turns out that important surveillance sources really are going dark — and that’s a big if (it’s not only on TV that modern tech already makes it easier to surveil suspects) — there’s no need to mandate wiretap backdoors.
That’s because there’s already an alternative in place: buggy, vulnerable software.
The same vulnerabilities that enable crime in the first place also give law enforcement a way to wiretap — when they have a narrowly targeted warrant and can’t get what they’re after some other way. The very reasons why we have Patch Tuesday followed by Exploit Wednesday, why opening e-mail attachments feels like Russian roulette, and why anti-virus software and firewalls aren’t enough to keep us safe online provide the very backdoors the FBI wants.
Since the beginning of software time, every technology device — and especially ones that use the internet — has and continues to have vulnerabilities. The sad truth is that as hard as we may try, as often as we patch what we can patch, no one knows how to build secure software for the real world.
Instead of building special (and more vulnerable) new wiretapping interfaces, law enforcement can tap their targets’ devices and apps directly by exploiting existing vulnerabilities. Instead of changing the law, they can use specialized, narrowly targeted exploit tools to do the tapping.
In fact, targeted FBI computer exploits are nothing new. When the FBI placed a “keylogger” on suspected bookmaker Nicky Scarfo Jr.’s computer in 2000, it allowed the government to win a conviction from decrypting his files after gaining access to his PGP password. A few years later, the FBI developed “CIPAV,” a piece of software that enables investigators to download such spying tools electronically.
The sad truth is that no one knows how to build secure software for the real world.
Exploits aren’t a magic wiretapping bullet. There’s engineering effort involved in finding vulnerabilities and building exploit tools, and that costs money.
And when the FBI finds a vulnerability in a major piece of software, shouldn’t they let the manufacturer know so innocent users can patch? Should the government buy exploit tools on the underground market or build them themselves? These are difficult questions, but they’re not fundamentally different from those we grapple with for dealing with informants, weapons, and other potentially dangerous law enforcement tools.
But at least targeted exploit tools are harder to abuse on a large scale than globally mandated backdoors in every switch, every router, every application, every device.
While the thought of the FBI exploiting vulnerabilities to conduct authorized wiretaps makes us a bit queasy, at least that approach leaves the infrastructure, and everyone else’s devices, alone.
Ultimately, not much is gained — but too much is lost — by mandating special “lawful intercept” interfaces in internet systems. There’s no need to talk about adding deliberate backdoors until we figure out how to get rid of the unintentional ones … and that won’t be for a long, long time.
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – Want to feel like a layabout and as if you’re already way behind schedule in your life?
At just 22 years of age, Chris Colfer has starred in a TV series, “Glee,” for the past four seasons, winning a Golden Globe award and two Emmy nominations for his performance in the breakout role of gay high-school chorister Kurt Hummel.
Now Colfer has written a movie and stars in it and – here’s where the rest of us can start feeling like slackers – “Struck by Lightning” is smart, amusing, modestly scaled and will appeal to a wider audience than just Gleeks who adore Colfer and the Fox series.
Borrowing a page from “Sunset Boulevard,” Colfer begins his slight coming-of-age comedy by letting us know that his character, 17-year old Carson Phillips, is already dead. Carson, a high-school senior with literary ambitions, departs this earth thanks to lightning bolt that strikes his car.
The rest of the movie is an extended flashback to his final year of high school, during which Carson, an outcast, starts a literary journal, hoping his effort will impress the admissions committee at a fancy college sufficiently to approve his application.
The problem? None of his classmates want to contribute. Carson gets around this hurdle by digging up enough dirt to blackmail many of the school’s more popular kids — a jock, cheerleader and goth girl – into joining his endeavor.
The comedy, directed by Brian Dannelly (Showtime’s “Weeds”), sometimes gets more complicated than it needs to be and often feels a wee bit smug, but on the whole this is a promising first effort.
The supporting cast, which includes Rebel Wilson as Carson’s best friend, Allison Janney as his out-of-it single mother, Dermot Mulroney as his absent father and Christina Hendricks as dad’s new wife, all provide solid support, with Wilson, a skilled clown, earning the lion’s share of the laughs.
The 84-minute movie opens in theaters in New York and Los Angeles and several other cities on Friday. It has been available on VOD since December 19.
Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, a psychologist and writer whose work helped explain why women are twice as prone to depression as men and why such low moods can be so hard to shake, died on Jan. 2 in New Haven. She was 53.
Andrew Sacks
Susan Nolen-Hoeksema at the University of Michigan in 2003. Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema's research showed that women were more prone to ruminate, or dwell on the sources of problems rather than solutions, more than men.
Her death followed heart surgery to correct a congenitally weak valve, said her husband, Richard Nolen-Hoeksema.
Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema, a professor at Yale University, began studying depression in the 1980s, a time of great excitement in psychiatry and psychology. New drugs like Prozac were entering the market; novel talking therapies were proving effective, too, particularly cognitive behavior therapy, in which people learn to defuse upsetting thoughts by questioning their basis.
Her studies, first in children and later in adults, exposed one of the most deceptively upsetting of these patterns: rumination, the natural instinct to dwell on the sources of problems rather than their possible solutions. Women were more prone to ruminate than men, the studies found, and in a landmark 1987 paper she argued that this difference accounted for the two-to-one ratio of depressed women to depressed men.
She later linked rumination to a variety of mood and behavior problems, including anxiety, eating disorders and substance abuse.
“The way I think she’d put it is that, when bad things happen, women brood — they’re cerebral, which can feed into the depression,” said Martin Seligman, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, who oversaw her doctoral work. “Men are more inclined to act, to do something, plan, beat someone up, play basketball.”
Dr. Seligman added, “She was the leading figure in sex differences in depression of her generation.”
Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema wrote several books about her research for general readers, including “Women Who Think Too Much: How to Break Free of Overthinking and Reclaim Your Life.” These books described why rumination could be so corrosive — it is deeply distracting; it tends to highlight negative memories — and how such thoughts could be alleviated.
Susan Kay Nolen was born on May 22, 1959, in Springfield, Ill., to John and Catherine Nolen. Her father ran a construction business, where her mother was the office manager; Susan was the eldest of three children.
She entered Illinois State University before transferring to Yale. She graduated summa cum laude in 1982 with a degree in psychology.
After earning a Ph.D. in psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, she joined the faculty at Stanford. She later moved to the University of Michigan, before returning to Yale in 2004.
Along the way she published scores of studies and a popular textbook. In 2003 she became the editor of the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, an influential journal.
Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema moved smoothly between academic work and articles and books for the general reader.
“I think part of what allowed her to move so easily between those two worlds was that she was an extremely clear thinker, and an extremely clear writer,” said Marcia K. Johnson, a psychology professor and colleague at Yale.
Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema lived in Bethany, Conn. In addition to her husband, a science writer, she is survived by a son, Michael; her brothers, Jeff and Steve; and her father, John.
“Over the past four decades women have experienced unprecedented growth in independence and opportunities,” Dr. Nolen-Hoeksema wrote in 2003, adding, “We have many reasons to be happy and confident.”
“Yet when there is any pause in our daily activities,” she continued, “many of us are flooded with worries, thoughts and emotions that swirl out of control, sucking our emotions and energy down, down, down. We are suffering from an epidemic of overthinking.”
Last year, at Apple’s event to announce the iPad Mini, I was wandering around the gadget petting zoo the company sets up after each product unveiling. As I turned a corner, I bumped into Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, who immediately wanted to show me something.
“Nick, just look at this,” Mr. Cook said as he held the miniaturized iPad in the air, brushing his hand along its edge as if he were about to perform a magic trick. Then, his index finger stopped, standing to attention as it pointed to two flat black buttons on the side. “Just look at those volume buttons. Have you ever seen anything like it? Aren’t they just outstanding?”
I took the iPad Mini from him, examining the buttons, which were the size of a grain of rice. “They sure are, Tim,” I replied in all seriousness. “Beautiful.”
What struck me about our brief conversation wasn’t that Mr. Cook was talking about two teensy buttons — this is Apple, after all — but that he never once mentioned the technology in the iPad Mini. Instead, he talked about one thing: design.
To this day, I’m not actually sure how many megahertz my iPad operates on. And frankly, I don’t care about the technology inside the technology anymore. It just works — for the most part — and therefore consumers no longer need to think about it.
“We’re on the tail end of technology being special,” says John Maeda, president of the Rhode Island School of Design. “The automobile was a weird alien technology when it first debuted, then, after a while, it evolved and designers stepped in to add value to it.”
Walk into most car showrooms in America and sales clerks might spend more time explaining the shape of the heated seat than the engine that moves the car along. Several decades ago, he might have been heralding pistons and horsepower.
Now, Mr. Maeda said, this shift has happened to technology, be it computers, smartphones or the iPad Mini.
“We have this exciting next step for design,” he said. “Now that we have enough technology to do anything, design can now begin to be better than the technology itself.”
This, for example, is what happened with the Nike FuelBand, the bracelet that can track a user’s daily activity and connect to a smartphone.
“We want to make the product emotional for the person using it, and that happens with the design of it,” said Stefan Olander, Nike’s vice president for digital sport, who worked on the wristband. “You have to create a visceral, emotive experience around the design, which is something everyone cares about.”
Mr. Olander said that people did not look at the FuelBand and ask what technology powered it, they looked at the design of this device that, once on your wrist, disappeared.
“You try to make it smaller, you try to make it lighter, you try to make it go away,” he said.
As a result of the technology slipping into the background, Nike has become one of the most advanced companies for wearable computers.
The worship of design has also taken designers out of the back offices and into top executive jobs. Engineers are still in the mix, to be sure. But they don’t rule the roost in product development, which may also be why tech products are easier to use, more human. “Design used to be the gravy at the end of the meal,” Mr. Maeda said. “But now the quantity of design needed to be increased because of all of these screens, and we now metabolize this design for much longer.”
Now, the entire business is a Web site. Or an app. Or something else that is made to just vanish.
An Egyptian court granted an appeal by former President Hosni Mubarak and ordered a new trial into the killings of hundreds of protesters during the 2011 uprising, a move certain to inflame the political unrest that has upset the country’s democratic transition.
The ruling was a victory for the ailing Mubarak and his Interior minister, Habib Adli, who also won his appeal. Both men, who had been sentenced to life in prison, face other criminal charges and are likely to remain in detention until a new trial in the deaths by security forces of more than 800 protesters.
“The previous ruling was unfair and illegal,” said Yousry Abdelrazeg, one of Mubarak’s lawyers, who accused the judge in the first trial of political bias. “The case was just a mess and there was no evidence against Mubarak.”
No date has been set for the new trial.
The court’s decision comes amid turmoil over an Islamist-backed constitution and outrage over the expanded powers of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. It means a bloody chapter in Egypt’s 2011 revolt will be revisited with the prospect that Mubarak, whose police state ruled for 30 years, may be absolved in a case that deepened the nation’s political differences and impassioned the Arab world.
Mubarak was convicted in June of not preventing the deaths of hundreds of protesters attacked by police and snipers during the uprising, which began on Jan. 25, 2011, and ended 18 days later when he stepped aside and the military seized power.
Mubarak argued that he had not ordered the crackdown and was unaware of the extent of the violence. A recently completed government-ordered investigation into the killings, however, reportedly found that Mubarak had monitored the deadly response by security forces in Tahrir Square via a live television feed.
The appeals court ruling came a day after prosecutors announced an investigation into allegations that Mubarak, 84, received about $1 million in illicit gifts from Al Ahram, the country’s leading state-owned newspaper. The former president has reportedly been in a military hospital since December after he fell in a prison bathroom and injured himself.
Last year’s trial riveted the nation with images of the aging Mubarak wheeled into the defendant’s cage on a stretcher, his arms crossed and his eyes hidden behind sunglasses.
jeffrey.fleishman@latimes.com
(Special correspondent Reem Abdellatif contributed to this report)
Spoiler warning: Firefly ended over 10 years ago and it’s been 7 years since its subsequent film, Serenity, came out, so the spoiler statute of limitations is officially up. Proceed at your own risk.
Like many fans of the Joss Whedon space western Firefly, Kyle Hill was shocked by the end of the Serenity movie, when fan-favorite character Wash (Alan Tudyk) was unceremoniously impaled by a Reaver harpoon. Unlike most fans, Hill — a research assistant with a degree in Environmental Engineering and a contributor at Scientific American — decided to try and rewrite (fictional) history by proving that Wash’s death was scientifically impossible, using the power of math, physics and fandom. His article originally appeared online at Scientific American, and Wired publishes this updated version with permission.
I was late to Firefly. Nearly 10 years after the show first aired and then was subsequently cancelled, I holed up in my room, coffee and external hard drive in hand, aiming to blaze through one of the most beloved sci-fi series.
A mix of science fiction and “spaghetti-western” genres, Firefly was wonderful. It certainly awakened the fanboy in me, and I quickly understood why my girlfriend envied me for being able to watch the series for the first time.
It all ended abruptly, due to early cancellation, with the last episodes of Firefly barely answering any central questions or exploring the rich universe that had been so lovingly crafted by creator Joss Whedon. It was to my delight to learn that in 2005 there was a full-length movie in response to public (and private) outcries for more of Serenity and her crew.
Watching Serenity let me spend a bit more time in the ‘verse, and the film thankfully resolved a number of outstanding loops justwaiting to be closed. But the forced end of Firefly also forced Joss Whedon’s hand. He put in scenes that would only have appeared in a last hurrah like Serenity. One scene in particular shook me, like the unexpected sight of a Reaver ship. It’s a scene that drove me to NASA forums and technical reports, glass manufacturers, my calculator, and eventually to this post.
Late in Serenity, after crash-landing at the mysterious base of “Mr. Universe,” pilot Hoban “Wash” Washburne meets his end at the tip of a Reaver spear. The immediacy of the violence, and his wife Zoe’s touching reaction, kept my mouth agape well into the next few minutes of the film. One of my favorite characters just died, as Firefly died. I couldn’t stand it. I had to be sure.
What if the Reaver spear couldn’t plausibly make it through the forward windows of Serenity? The movie may have been set in the future, but we too have built spacecraft with windows, and they are made to withstand impacts. If I could prove that a modern shuttle window (assuming that a future window would be even better) could withstand the impact that killed Wash, I could have the ultimate in fanboy closure: the movie is “wrong,” and my version of the story lives on.
Objects in Space
In terrestrial situations, a speck of paint is less than harmless. In space, it’s deadly. Travelling at a blistering 10,000 meters per second in orbit, the equations deem it lethal. It becomes a “hypervelocity” bullet.
Our spacecraft obviously must account for this deadly debris. Tens of thousands of pieces of extraterrestrial trash litter the orbit of Earth [PDF], meaning that a shuttle’s final impact could come from an errant hex nut. Shuttles today are outfitted with shielding to prevent such disasters, and feature two-and-a-half inch thick windows—the thickest pieces of glass ever produced in the optical quality for see-through viewing.
The largest impact to a shuttle window occurred when a fleck of paint struck STS-92—a flight to the International Space Station. A shuttle window has never been penetrated by a hypervelocity impact, but it doesn’t have to be. A deformation large enough could eventually cause window failure upon repeated take-offs and re-entries.
After engineers examined the crater in the window of STS-92, the shape that best explained the damage was a sort of miniaturized plate. But to begin making comparisons, I’ll consider the fleck of paint to be a similarly sized metal sphere. This will bring the numbers in line with the hypervelocity testing that NASA has already conductBased on the size and the speed of the fleck that hit STS-92, I calculated that the window weathered an impact with around 20 Joules of kinetic energy—equivalent to four milligrams of TNT or a decently thrown baseball. It created more than enough damage to warrant a window replacement. And such replacements from serious impacts are commonplace. Robert Lee Hotz notes in the Wall Street Journalthat “NASA shuttle engineers have replaced the spacecraft’s debris-pitted windows after almost every flight since since 1981, at a cost of about $40,000 per window.”
Such little flecks can be catastrophes. An orbiter unlucky enough to be hit by anything much larger than the paint chip that hit STS-92 is in for some trouble. Debris measuring five centimeters in diameter packs the punch of a bus collision. Any larger than that and we begin making comparisons to sticks of dynamite.
The shuttle windows are tough, to be sure, surviving nearly 1,400 impacts intact over 43 sampled missions, but are they strong enough to save Wash? Tiny particles are elevated to terrifying status because of their ridiculous speeds, not their mass. Conversely, the Reaver spear that killed Wash was larger, but moving much more slowly. A few assumptions and some physics equations would determine if I could save him.
I Am A Leaf on the Wind…
To get the general dimensions of the spear that killed Wash, I had to (unfortunately) go back to the scene in question, excruciatingly slowing down an emotional moment to be replayed over and over.
Diving back into Serenity, I used an earlier Reaver chase scene to guesstimate the spear size and speed. If Reavers shoot spears slow enough to be dodged (which they do), the spear that kills Wash can’t be moving much faster than a Major League fast-ball, putting the upper limit on speed around 100 miles per hour (45 m/s). This is orders of magnitude slower than the hypervelocity impacts that a shuttle deals with, but the spear is thousands of times more massive than a fleck of paint. Assuming it’s fashioned out of an “average” metal, and given its size, I’d guess it’s around 100-200 pounds (45-90 kg).
Kinetic energy is easy enough to calculate. The kinetic energy of a moving object is one-half of its mass multiplied by the square of its velocity.
This equation gives the Reaver spear a frightening 45,500 Joules at the low end. This is over 3,700 times the energy of the largest recorded impact to a space shuttle window — equivalent to a detonation of a pencil made of TNT or a medium sized anvil dropped on it.
What are the risks? via Aerospace.org
Based on hypervelocity testing undertaken by NASA, the Reaver spear would be like an aluminum sphere with a one-centimeter diameter hitting the window at 10 kilometers per second (assuming that the tip of the spear is comparable to a 1cm diameter point). Seeing that the damage threshold for a shuttle window based on this testing is 0.004 centimeters, my hopes quickly vanished. With this kind of energy, the Reaver spear could pierce a shuttle’s wing, its thermal protection tiles, or even its crew cabin.
The math doesn’t lie—Wash didn’t stand a chance.
Watch How I Soar…
I thought I had found the perfect fanboy out. The windows in Serenity looked flimsy and thin, surely not something a space-faring craft would be outfitted with. If the windows were anything like what we use to traverse the ‘verse today, perhaps all that would have happened is a jolt of fright from a deflected Reaver spear, or so I hoped.
But even delving through a hundred page NASA technical report [PDF] on impact shielding couldn’t ease my psyche.
Now, this is at its core a fanboy rant. No matter what I found, Wash dies in the movie. It’s part of the larger story and serves as a plot point, not a meaningless killing-off. But I selfishly wanted closure; I needed to resolve the dissonance between a character’s death and the fact that we know he wouldn’t have died if the networks saw better numbers from Firefly.
Maybe this is a testament to the enduring qualities of the show. To create characters important enough, and in only fifteen short stories, to warrant hours of research and calculation that ultimately proves useless in the larger story is an outcome of a great narrative. It’s typical of a fan base that will still pack a Comic-Con panel ten years after the airing of the show.
In the end, I like the story better this way. It takes a great narrative to make someone care so much about a character that he takes real world steps to resolve his own dissonance. If I could have ‘proved’ that Wash wouldn’t have been killed, a whole can of worms would open. What about the fact that Serenity was an old ship with sub-optimal gear? What about space-age technologies like super-strong window polymers? The scene obviously resonated with people (especially me), and the fact that I failed is a better story than a discussion of faulty film physics.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Pop star Britney Spears confirmed on Friday she was leaving “The X Factor” talent show after just one year as a celebrity judge, saying it was time to get back to making music.
Calling it a “very difficult decision,” Spears said in a statement: “I had an incredible time doing the show and I love the other judges and I am so proud of my teens but it’s time for me to get back in the studio.
“Watching them all do their thing up on that stage every week made me miss performing so much! I can’t wait to get back out there and do what I love most,” the “Circus” singer said.
Spears’ most recent album, “Femme Fatale,” was released in March 2011.
Celebrity website TMZ.com reported on Friday that Spears was in talks about a long-term residency gig in Las Vegas. The gambling city is already host to stars like Celine Dion and Shania Twain, who perform for about two years in one of the many hotel and casino venues.
Spears, 31, was recruited to the Fox singing contest “The X Factor” with a reported $ 15 million salary after a 14-year singing career that made her one of the biggest pop stars of the 2000s.
“X Factor” creator Simon Cowell had banked on Spears’ huge fan base and a strong curiosity factor to give his show a second chance with audiences after a disappointing first season in 2011 that ended with the firing of two judges as well as host Steve Jones.
But audiences in fact slumped and the TV show lost about three million regular viewers from its first season to about 9.7 million per episode in 2012. Many fans and TV critics found Spears bland and boring.
The exit of Spears leaves Cowell searching for two new judges to lift the “The X Factor” past its NBC rival, “The Voice,” in the ratings when it returns in September.
Judge and record producer L.A. Reid announced in December finale that he would be returning full time to his job as the head of Epic Records. Spears took “The X Factor” gig with singer Demi Lovato, 20, in May 2012 to fill the judges’ seats left by Paula Abdul and Nicole Scherzinger, who were both fired by Cowell.
(Reporting By Jill Serjeant; Editing by David Brunnstrom)
Music News Headlines – Yahoo! News
Title Post: Britney Spears says quitting Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/britney-spears-says-quitting/ Link To Post : Britney Spears says quitting Rating: 100%
based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews. Author: Fluser SeoLink Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment
With the nation in the grip of a severe influenza outbreak that has seen deaths reach epidemic levels, New York State declared a public health emergency on Saturday, making access to vaccines more easily available.
There have been nearly 20,000 cases of flu reported across the state so far this season, officials said. Last season, 4,400 positive laboratory tests were reported.
“We are experiencing the worst flu season since at least 2009, and influenza activity in New York State is widespread, with cases reported in all 57 counties and all five boroughs of New York City,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said in a statement.
Under the order, pharmacists will be allowed to administer flu vaccinations to patients between 6 months and 18 years old, temporarily suspending a state law that prohibits pharmacists from administering immunizations to children.
While children and older people tend to be the most likely to become seriously ill from the flu, Mr. Cuomo urged all New Yorkers to get vaccinated.
On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta said that deaths from the flu had reached epidemic levels, with at least 20 children having died nationwide. Officials cautioned that deaths from pneumonia and the flu typically reach epidemic levels for a week or two every year. The severity of the outbreak will be determined by how long the death toll remains high or if it climbs higher.
There was some evidence that caseloads may be peaking, federal officials said on Friday.
In New York City, public health officials announced on Thursday that flu-related illnesses had reached epidemic levels, and they joined the chorus of authorities urging people to get vaccinated.
“It’s a bad year,” the city’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, told reporters on Thursday. “We’ve got lots of flu, it’s mainly type AH3N2, which tends to be a little more severe. So we’re seeing plenty of cases of flu and plenty of people sick with flu. Our message for any people who are listening to this is it’s still not too late to get your flu shot.”
There has been a spike in the number of people going to emergency rooms over the past two weeks with flulike symptoms – including fever, fatigue and coughing – Dr. Farley said.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Mr. Cuomo made a public display of getting shots this past week.
In a briefing with reporters on Friday, officials from the C.D.C. said that this year’s vaccine was effective in 62 percent of cases.
As officials have stepped up their efforts encouraging vaccinations, there have been scattered reports of shortages. But officials said plenty of the vaccine was available.
According to the C.D.C., makers of the flu vaccine produced about 135 million doses for this year. As of early this month, 128 million doses had been distributed. While that would not be enough for every American, only 37 percent of the population get a flu shot each year.
Federal health officials said they would be happy if that number rose to 50 percent, which would mean that there would be more than enough vaccine for anyone who wanted to be immunized.
Two other diseases – norovirus and whooping cough – are also widespread this winter and are contributing to the number of people getting sick.
The flu can resemble a cold, though the symptoms come on more rapidly and are more severe.
A version of this article appeared in print on 01/13/2013, on page A21 of the NewYork edition with the headline: New York Declares Health Emergency.
