text:
Hiring managers and recruiters: tell the candidates you didn't select that they didn't get the job
7 January 2019 Jim Greycareer, unemployed 2018 16 Comments
As I start my new job today I am going to vent a little about how few companies got back to me after any conversation about, or even my application for, a position they had available.
There was one shining exception, a small and privately held software company. My interviewers there included the CEO, who is from a prominent family in my city. He called me a few days after our interview. "I'm sorry to say that you are our number two candidate," he began. "I'm sure this is not the news you want to hear. But I'm calling you personally to say that you impressed us all. It's just that the fellow we hired has direct experience building integrations to a couple of our customers' systems, and we need that in the short term much more than we need leadership like you offer. It was a tough call. But I can imagine all sorts of places I could plug you in later, if you're open to me calling you back when the time is right. And now you have my personal number, so if you ever think I can help you with anything, please call me."
What a class act. A quick email would have done the job but this CEO didn't lose the opportunity to make a fan out of me.
The only other company to officially tell me "thanks, but no thanks" was a mid-sized medical services company with a large internal software-development team. Seven weeks after my interview their recruiter emailed me to say they had chosen another candidate. He admitted that the holidays had delayed their decision process, at least.
A colleague referred me for a job at his company. He and I and the hiring manager all worked together at the same company several years ago. I thought the interview went great and I was excited about the opportunity. But then I heard nothing for a few weeks. I reached out. The manager said that he was pursuing a couple other candidates but that I wasn't out of the running. I never heard back from him or his recruiter again. It's been almost two months since then. Certainly they chose one of the other candidates.
No other company with which I had interviews followed up with me at all.
I applied to a dozen or so jobs where I did not get an interview. Only one communicated with me at all about my status as a candidate.
I could have followed up with these companies myself. But one company made an offer, a good one. As I tried to read the tea leaves of my active opportunities I could see nobody else was going to offer me anything better before my family's finances got rough. I accepted and moved on.
I'm not upset that I wasn't chosen for the other jobs. Every job search involves hearing "no thanks" a number of times before hearing "you're hired." Even though I know I could have done well in each job for which I interviewed, there could have been candidates in the running that offered something valuable that I didn't.
But I wanted to hear the "no thanks" and have the loop closed. I hated having so many balls in the air. It would have let me move on cleanly as I continued to pursue other opportunities. And, daggone it, it's just professional to do so.
From now on, whenever I fill a position on a team I lead, I will either personally write the "thanks, but no thanks" notes, or confirm that my recruiter did.
I shed no tears for Amazon's white-collar workers — but its blue-collar workers deserve better
24 August 2015 Jim Greyabuse, career, work 14 Comments
Some companies are just hard to work for. Amazon appears to be one of them. I shed no tears for its white-collar workers, but in many cases its blue-collar workers deserve better.
The big online retailer's corporate culture has been in the news a lot lately after a damning article in the New York Times lambasted the company for unrelenting pace and pressure at its Seattle headquarters. It told stories of ridiculously long hours, of scoldings for midnight emails not immediately answered, of employees undermining each other using an anonymous feedback system, of a brutal annual performance rating system that ends in firing those ranked at the bottom even when the ratings are good, of grown men routinely crying in their offices.
The article smells like a hit piece to me. I wonder what axe the Times or the reporters have to grind. Indeed, people inside Amazon are calling the piece largely bunk, including this employee who tore the article apart piece by piece.
Largely bunk, though, because nobody denies that Amazon is an intensely demanding workplace that wants to attract and keep overachieving A players. Anyone who can't hack it isn't coddled — they leave, voluntarily or not.
Plenty of people thrive in such an environment. Plenty of people don't. And for those who don't, they all have skills and talents that transfer easily to other companies with cultures that fit them better. Plenty of companies are available for them to choose from. And that's why I don't cry for the workers at Amazon headquarters. They have good options.
Inside Amazon's Whitestown, Indiana, warehouse. WRTV photo.
But Amazon's blue-collar workers have far fewer options, and many of those options are poor. Some stories of conditions inside Amazon's many warehouses enrage me. One warehouse turned off the air conditioning in the summertime and sent the prostrated to the ER. They wouldn't even open the warehouse doors to vent the heat, to prevent theft. Worries about theft also lead Amazon warehouses to make employees wait for up to 25 unpaid minutes at quitting time to go through a security check. Lawsuits followed. They went all the way to the Supreme Court, which validated the practice, unfortunately.
Even when Amazon warehouse workers avoid dangerous conditions, the warehouse is still far from a joyful place to work. I know someone who worked the last holiday season at the Amazon warehouse in nearby Whitestown, Indiana, and he complained of a deeply intense, almost impossible pace that left his feet aching. But, he added, for anyone who doesn't like it there, five more people are waiting in line for the job. Few other viable employers are available for these workers.
Low-skill blue-collar workers do have options — they're just enormously difficult. I think about my dad's family in West Virginia's hill country. Coal mining provides most of the employment, and it's all dangerous work. Worker abuses used to be very common; even during my father's childhood there, "I owe my soul to the company store" was real. But many in my family found deep courage and took big risks to find a better life. My great grandmother opened a tavern and boardinghouse in a little town where the railroad loaded the coal. It was a bold move for a woman in those years, but my great grandmother had guts (and was a deadly shot). And many of my family moved to northern Indiana in the 1950s to find safer, surer work in construction and manufacturing. That was not done lightly — West Virginians are fiercely dedicated to family togetherness.
Indeed, half my family still lives in West Virginia in or not far from that railroad town, and many of those who choose to work still go down into the dangerous mines. Other jobs are very hard to come by, even though Amazon does have a warehouse up the road in Huntington. This surprises me given how hard those hills are to navigate — this isn't prime factory or warehouse territory.
I applaud anyone at this end of the worker spectrum who takes good risks to find a better life. But not everybody succeeds, and not everybody can do it. At some point, it becomes necessary to protect blue-collar workers from workplace abuses, simply because some number of them will have no options and can be terribly exploited. It reminds me of turn-of-the-20th-century stories about six day, sixty hour weeks, and about child labor, and about poverty-level wages, because the employers could get away with it. Federal labor law and labor unions ended up solving those problems. I'm no fan of government intervention and I deplore what labor unions have turned into. Yet I do think that working people with limited options deserve some protection, some guarantee of humane working conditions.
White-collar workers are much more likely to have good options; many of them can get another job in the same field near where they live. If any of the abuses in the New York Times article are true, I deplore them. But a software developer or a marketing specialist at Amazon headquarters can quit, and soon find other programming or marketing jobs right there in Seattle. A departing Amazon warehouse worker in Whitestown, however, is much more likely to face long unemployment and an uncertain future.
Why local news is no longer appointment TV for me
16 March 2015 Jim Greynews, television, TV 25 Comments
The drunk police officer plowed his squad car into two motorcycles stopped at a red light. One rider was killed; two others were injured. A bungled and compromised investigation, continued bad behavior by the officer, and the slow wheels of justice kept this story at the top of the news for three years. At last, the officer was convicted of drunk driving, criminal recklessness, and reckless homicide.
WRTV photo
On the day of the verdict, I turned to local television news for the story. I hoped for reporting and analysis that would help me understand the conviction in the context of the investigation and the trial. Instead, the station I chose led with — and heavily promoted — the emotional reaction of one dead rider's mother as the verdict was read.
Then the newscast cut to an early weather report, and made no more mention of a top local story of this decade.
It's not like most viewers didn't know of this story, which was heavily reported over the three years between accident and conviction. But there was so much more to tell that evening: to recount the story's timeline, to summarize the trial, to connect the dots that led to the guilty verdict, and to share the day's courtroom drama. The mother's tears were rightly part of that story. But they were not the story.
To be fair: a good television news program shows the news as much as it tells it. Without action video, all that's left is talking heads. When I was a boy 40 years ago, local TV news was balding men in gray suits, sitting at a desk, droning on about city-council meetings. Yecch; who wants to watch that? Unless those council members were throwing punches at each other, there was nothing to see.
Also, many stories would benefit from explanation and analysis that television doesn't have time for. Even if it did, television news is by its nature a short-attention-span theater. People watch the news while living their lives: getting ready for work, sending kids off to school, making dinner.
But even within these realities, an average TV newscast was once a good enough summary of a day's events. I don't find that to be true anymore. Instead, I find TV news trying to keep me on the hook by driving strong emotions.
I'm no industry insider, but here's what I think is going on. Thanks to hundred-channel cable and the Internet, viewers have more choices and any single news outlet has to compete harder than ever for viewers. Younger viewers favor these other choices so overwhelmingly that the TV newscast viewer's average age has risen sharply away from the younger viewers advertisers want — and the remaining audience that remains. And the large corporations that own most television stations today have shareholders to please and/or enormous debt loads to shoulder, so they cut costs to the bone.
It's driven TV news to rely increasingly on young, pretty, and presumably inexpensive talent, and to focus on dramatic stories they can tell easily and quickly. Bus crashes, police standoffs, drive-by shootings, train derailments, shackled felons shuffling into jail — these stories create compelling video and generate a dramatic, fast-paced news program.
I live in the 27th largest television market in the United States, which I would think would have a glut of experienced reporters to choose from. But in the last ten years or so, I've watched many middle-aged, experienced reporters disappear to be replaced by good-looking youngsters. They can't possibly have their predecessors' experience or contacts.
I don't know whether it's their thin experience or corporate edict, but their reporting often shuns depth and context in favor of immediacy and drama. A reporter stands live at the scene, even when the story happened eight hours ago and the place is empty and quiet now. She reports what she sees and perhaps what a police spokesman told her. She asks a man on the street for his opinion or gets a teary-eyed victim to emote for the camera, and then tosses back to the anchor. I come away knowing only that the thing happened and someone was upset about it.
And then there are the fear-inducing health and safety stories and the ambush-style "tough questions" that masquerade as investigative journalism. It's all wrapped in a shiny package of needless, endless swoosh sounds and "Breaking News" banners.
Well, I'm repelled by it all. The 6:00 news used to be appointment television for me. But over the past ten years or so I've watched less and less of it. I catch it when I happen to, and when the weather is bad.
I'm not suggesting that local TV news return to 40 years ago with the middle-aged men and the droning. The things I mentioned above are not all inherently a problem. The over-reliance on them is.
So TV news: To win me back, dig deeper into your stories and tell them straight up, without only playing on my emotions. And when a mother cries as her son's killer is convicted, go ahead and show her tears. Just wrap them in the bigger story that shows those tears' context.
To the Indianapolis Museum of Art: Way to shoot yourself in the foot
17 December 2014 Jim GreyIndianapolis, museums 18 Comments
Last week, the Indianapolis Museum of Art announced that admission to the museum and its gorgeous grounds will no longer be free starting in April. It will cost $18 for adults, $10 for children.
IMA welcome pavilion
It's neither unusual nor unreasonable for a museum to charge. But the IMA bungled this announcement, slathering it in suspicious PR doublespeak. They are also making this enormous price jump too suddenly, leaving a feeling of sticker shock and pricing visits out of reach for many.
In all, this announcement has damaged community goodwill. I think they just shot themselves in the foot. I think they'll lose visitors to the point where the admission fee doesn't generate the revenue they seek.
In a press release, the IMA announced this change as a "campus enhancement plan to improve the visitor experience and financial sustainability." The IMA's admission fee appears to cover both the museum and grounds. They will reconfigure access to require all visitors to pass through the museum building's welcome center to build "long-lasting relationships with IMA guests."
Oldfields, on the grounds
Hogwash. News reports say that the museum is using too large a portion of its endowment for operations, and the IMA needs to correct that so the endowment can serve long term. It's obvious that money entirely drives this decision, and that requiring all visitors to enter through the welcome center is how they will collect admission fees.
It would have been better for the IMA to just own that. They should have said plainly that they need to charge admission to ensure the museum's long-term operation, and skipped the "campus enhancement" and "long-lasting relationship" nonsense. Nobody's falling for it. Transparency engenders trust; bad PR-speak makes everybody think you're hiding something.
$18 to ride through? Seriously?
But more importantly, the IMA appears not to have thought through the emotional impact of this tall admission fee. Cries of elitism and exclusion pepper the comments sections on every news story posted about this change. The IMA was not going to entirely avoid that even if admission had been set at $5; it takes quite an adjustment to pay for anything that had been free. But after you cut through their invective, many of those commenters have a good point: what had been a wonderful free family outing is now mighty expensive, and has been priced out of reach for many.
It is clear that this change will cost the IMA its most casual patronage, those who visited once in a while because it was something to do and it didn't cost anything. But how many people who really appreciate the art and the grounds will no longer go, either out of principle or because they just can't afford it now?
The IMA is a great place for a stroll
Perhaps the IMA wishes to drive their non-casual patronage toward memberships, which cost $55 per year for individuals and $75 per year for families. With a membership, a family of four can visit anytime for $19 more than one visit at admission price.
I'm going to buy a membership, even though I don't like how the IMA is handling this. I visit the IMA a dozen times a year, usually just to walk the grounds and take photographs. I would hate to not do that anymore, and I can afford a membership.
But I wonder what would happen if the IMA instead set admission at $5, which would avoid this sticker shock. I'm betting they'd lose far fewer visitors up front. I also think they might make up on volume what they lose on that $18 fee. If it didn't, they could raise admission a buck or two every year until they find that sweet spot.
I think the IMA has hurt itself. I hope, for the IMA's continued good fortune, that enough people like me buy memberships to make up for the loss of visitors for whom a day at the museum is now too expensive.
On language: The unfortunate nominalization of spend and ask
27 October 2014 Jim GreyEnglish, grammar, language, writing 9 Comments
James Kilpatrick
James Kilpatrick may have been best known for his syndicated political newespaper column, but I preferred his weekly column about writing and English called "The Writer's Art." I loved it when in his column he'd put on his virtual judicial robes and open the Court of Peeves, Crotchets, and Irks, for what followed would be a humorous, incisive invective on foibles of our English language.
Kilpatrick passed in 2010. I miss his column.
I wonder how he'd address a trend I'm hearing that dips from the well of nominalization. I'm in favor of making nouns from other parts of speech when the conversion is necessary or helpful. This is how we get useful words like investigation, which is an ancient nominalization of investigate.
But I don't think ask and spend need to be used as nouns. To be fair, there's precedent: etymologists have found occasional uses of these words as nouns going back almost 400 years. It's like a recurring passing fad. But the poor dears don't even get the whole treatment, as they are not transformed (as investigate becomes investigation). They are used as is:
Ask: What are the asks here? My ask is that you deliver the project by next Friday. Wow, that's a big ask.
Spend: Our marketing spend exceeded budget again last month. This month, we anticipate a spend of about $1 million.
This usage makes one sound savvy, in the know. But it also pulls the punch and blurs meaning, making concrete expectations and budgets seem abstract. Ask even carries a passive-aggressive note. What happens when we say exactly what we mean?
Ask: What do you want? I want you to deliver the project by next Friday. Wow, I'm not sure that's possible.
Spend: We overspent our marketing budget again last month. This month, we plan to spend about $1 million.
Ah, sweet clarity!
Obamacare, healthcare.gov, and how government software gets made
24 October 2013 Jim Grey Leave a comment
It's been in the news lately: the healthcare.gov site, a component of the Affordable Care Act, fell flat on its face at launch. It was unable to handle the crush of people seeking health-insurance information. I have empathy for the people who built the site, because I've built government software before and it was way harder than it needed to be. Here's my story, at my software-development blog.
By Jim Grey (about)
I was not surprised when I heard that the Obamacare Web site, healthcare.gov, crashed and burned right out of the gate.
But I was disappointed. Regardless of what I think of the Affordable Care Act, it's the law. I wanted its implementation, including healthcare.gov, to go well.
Still, I wasn't surprised because I know how government software gets made.
Several years ago I worked in middle management for a company that built a government Web application related to health-care customer service. I was in charge of testing it to make sure it worked. It is probably not going out on a limb to say that the people who built healthcare.gov experienced many of the same kinds of things I experienced on that project.
Let me be plain up front: I was a poor fit for government software development. I was too free-wheeling and entrepreneurial for…


text:
Q: Proper way to do imports with gas From my two previous questions -- one related to importing constants and one related to importing functions -- Import constants in x86 with gas and Why does this program loop?, I was wondering if the following accurately summarizes how to do imports using as in assembly with an example:
# constants.s
SYS_EXIT        = 60
SYS_WRITE       = 1
STDOUT_FILENO   = 1

# utils.s
.include "constants.s"

# Global function
.globl print_string
print_string:

    call get_string_length
    mov %eax, %edx
    mov %rdi,       %rsi
    mov $1,         %edi
    mov $SYS_WRITE, %eax
    syscall
    ret

# Local function (for now)
get_string_length:
    mov $0, %eax # string length goes in rax
  L1_get_string_length:
    cmp $0, (%rdi, %rax,)
    je L2_get_string_length
    inc %eax
    jmp L1_get_string_length
  L2_get_string_length:
    ret

# file.s
.include "constants.s"

.data
str:    .string "Hellllloooo"

.text
.globl _start
_start:
    mov $str,   %rdi
    call print_string
    mov $0, %edi
    mov $SYS_EXIT, %eax
    syscall

If my understanding is correct then:

*

*Functions need to be made .globl to be accessible to other object files during linking. Both those object files need to be linked together, for example: ld file.o utils.o -o file.

*Definitions or macros can be imported/included using .include "filename". What this does is essentially copy/paste the contents of that included file into where that directive is. We do not need to link -- or do anything additional beyond -- the .include statement of that file. Does it matter if multiple files use that same include statement?

*Any other things I may be missing or tips with imports, includes, etc? Does .include take a standard unix path, for example I could do: .include "../constants.s" or .include "/home/constants.s"?

A: Here are four possible ways to "import constants from a file".
1. Using .include and = (uses gas only)
constants.inc:
    ANSWER_TO_LIFE = 0x42

code.s:
    .include "constants.inc"
    mov $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %eax
    add $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %ebx   # best encoding
    mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE+17), %ecx
    mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE*ANSWER_TO_LIFE), %edx

Building:
as -o code.o code.s         # or gcc -c code.s
ld -o prog code.o code2.o   # or gcc -o prog code.o code2.o

This is the most straightforward approach using only the features of the GNU assembler itself.  I have named the include file .inc instead of .s to indicate that it is meant to be included into other assembly source files, but not assembled on its own (as it would produce an object file containing nothing).  You can include it into as many different files as need to use the constant, and relative or absolute paths are supported (.include ../include/constants.inc, .include /usr/share/include/constants.inc both work).
Since the assembler knows the value of the constant, it can choose the best instruction encodings.  For instance, the x86 add $imm, %reg32  instruction has two possible encodings: a 6-byte encoding with a 32-bit immediate operand (opcode 0x81), and a smaller 3-byte encoding with an 8-bit sign-extended immediate operand (opcode 0x83).  Since 0x42 fits in 8 bits, the latter is available here, so add $0x42, %ebx can be encoded in three bytes as 83 c3 42.  The example also shows that we can perform arbitrary arithmetic on the constant at assembly time.
2. Using the C preprocessor (most common in practice)
constants.h:
#define ANSWER_TO_LIFE 0x42

code.S:
#include "constants.h"
    mov $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %eax
    add $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %ebx   # also gets best encoding
    mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE*ANSWER_TO_LIFE), %ecx

Building:
gcc -c code.S              # can't use as by itself here
ld -o prog code.o code2.o  # or gcc if you prefer

In this approach, you run the C preprocessor cpp on the source file before giving it to the assembler.  The gcc command will do this for you if you name the source file with .S (note case sensitivity).  Then C-style #include and #define directives are expanded, so the assembler only sees mov $0x42, %eax without any indication that the constant ever had a name.
This approach has the advantage that the file constants.h can equally well be included into C code, which is helpful in the very common situation when your project mixes C and assembly source.  As such, it is the approach I've most commonly seen "in the wild".  (Practically no real-life programs are written entirely in assembly.)
In your original use case, where the constant in question was a Linux system call number, this approach is best because the relevant include file has already been written by the kernel developers, and you can get it with #include <asm/unistd.h>.  This file defines all the system call numbers with macro names of the form __NR_exit.
3. As a symbol resolved at link time (somewhat awkward)
constants.s:
    .global ANSWER_TO_LIFE
    ANSWER_TO_LIFE = 0x42

code.s:
    mov $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %eax
    add $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %ebx   # not the optimal encoding
    mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE+17), %ecx
    #mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE*ANSWER_TO_LIFE), %ecx # error

Building:
as -o constants.o constants.s          # or gcc -c constants.s
as -o code.o code.s                    # etc
ld -o prog constants.o code.o code2.o  # or gcc

This is the approach mentioned by @fuz in comments.  It treats the symbol ANSWER_TO_LIFE like a label that happens to be located at absolute address 0x42.  The assembler treats it as it would any other label; it doesn't know its address at assembly time, so it leaves it as an unresolved reference in the object file code.o, which the linker will eventually resolve.
The only real benefit of this approach that I can see is that if we want to change the value of the constant, say to 0x43, we don't have to re-run the assembler on all our source files code.s code2.s ...; we only have to re-assemble constant.s and re-link.  So we save a little bit of build time, but not much because assembling code is usually pretty fast anyway.  (It might make a difference if we referenced the symbol from C or C++ code, for which compilation is slower, but see below.)
But there are some notable disadvantages:

*

*Since the assembler doesn't know the value of the constant, it has to assume it could be of the largest size valid for each instruction in which  it is used.  In particular, in add $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %ebx, it can't assume that the 8-bit 0x83 encoding will be usable, so it has to select the larger 32-bit encoding.  So the instruction add $ANSWER_TO_LIFE, %ebx has to be assembled as 81 c3 00 00 00 00, where the 00 00 00 00 is replaced by the linker with the correct value 42 00 00 00.  But we end up using 6 bytes on an instruction that ideally could have been encoded using 3 bytes.

*On the flip side of this, immediate mov into a 64-bit register also has two encodings: one taking a sign-extended 32-bit immediate mov $imm32, %reg64 (opcode c7 with REX.W prefix), which is 7 bytes, and another taking a full 64-bit immediate mov $imm64, %reg64 (opcodes b8-b4 with REX.W), which is 10 bytes.  The assembler will by default select the 32-bit form, because the 64-bit one is really long and rarely needed.  But if it turns out that your symbol has a value that doesn't fit in 32 bits, you'll get an error at link time ("relocation truncated to fit"), and you'll have to go back and force the 64-bit encoding by using the mnemonic movabs.  If you had used approaches 1 or 2, the assembler would have known the value of your constant and would have selected the appropriate encoding in the first place.

*If we want to do build-time arithmetic on the constant, we're limited to whatever arithmetic can be represented as relocations in the object file.  Constant offsets work, so mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE+17), %ecx is okay; the object file tells the linker to fill in the relevant bytes with the value of the symbol ANSWER_TO_LIFE plus the constant 17.  (For actual labels, you'd want this for something like accessing a member from a static struct.)  But more general operations like multiplication aren't supported, because people wouldn't normally want to do those on addresses, so mov $(ANSWER_TO_LIFE*ANSWER_TO_LIFE), %edx results in an error from the assembler.  If we need the square of the answer to life, we have to write a mul instruction to compute it at run time, which would be no fun if this is code that is called frequently and needs to be fast.
The constant can also be accessed from C code linked into our project, but it has to be treated like a label (address of a variable), which makes it look weird.  We have to write something like
extern void *ANSWER_TO_LIFE;
printf("The answer is %lu\n", (unsigned long)&ANSWER_TO_LIFE);

If we try to write something more natural-looking like
extern unsigned long ANSWER_TO_LIFE;
printf("The answer is %lu\n", ANSWER_TO_LIFE);

the program will try to fetch the value from memory address 0x42, which will crash.
(Also, even in the first example, the assembly output by the compiler uses the mov mnemonic which again leads to the assembler selecting a 32-bit move.  If ANSWER_TO_LIFE were larger than 2^32 then linking would fail, and this time it's not as easy to fix.  AFAIK you'd need to give gcc an appropriate option to tell it to change its code model, which would cause every address load to use the less efficient 64-bit form, and you'd have to do this for your entire program.)
4. As a value stored in memory and fetched at runtime (inefficient)
constants.s:
    .section .rodata
    .global answer_to_life
answer_to_life:
    .int 0x42

code.s:
    mov answer_to_life, %eax
    add answer_to_life, %ebx

    # mov answer_to_life+17, %ecx # not valid, no such instruction exists
    mov answer_to_life, %ecx
    add $17, %ecx   # needs two instructions

    # mov answer_to_life*answer_to_life, %edx # not valid
    mov answer_to_life, %eax
    mul %eax  # clobbers %edx

Building:
as -o constants.o constants.s
as -o code.o code.s
ld -o prog constants.o code.o code2.o

This approach is the equivalent of having const int answer_to_life = 42; in a C program (though C++ is different).  The value 42 is stored in our program's memory and whenever we need to access it, we need an instruction that reads from memory; we can no longer encode it as an immediate within each instruction.  This will typically be slower to execute.  If we need to do any arithmetic on it, we have to write code to load it into a register and execute appropriate instructions at runtime, which takes cycles and code space.
I've changed the name here to lower case to match the convention for variables located in memory, as opposed to "compile time" constants which this no longer is.  Also note the different syntax in the instructions; mov answer_to_life, %eax, without the $ sign, is a load from memory instead of an immediate move.  $answer_to_life in this example gives you the address of the variable instead (which by a happy coincidence is 0x402000 in my test program).  If you want to be able to build a position-independent executable, which is the norm for modern Linux programs, you need to write answer_to_life(%rip) instead.
For the reasons noted above, this approach is not ideal for numerical constants that truly are known at compile time, but I include it for completeness and because you asked about it in comments.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Brian Taylor | 15:34 UK time, Thursday, 30 September 2010
For a man who had just been described as "daft, deluded, deranged and downright dangerous", Alex Salmond appeared remarkably sanguine.
Or, to sustain the alliteration, disinclined to fret.
Why so? Because he had dealt deftly and distinctively with the damnation delivered in his direction.
Indeed, Mr Salmond was able to arrive comfortably at what, for a politician, amounts to apotheosis: his glance at Mr Gray appeared to be one of marshalled pity, rather than contempt.
The attack had been founded, once more, upon Mr Salmond's "arc of prosperity"
comparisons. Which countries, said Mr Gray, now fitted that description?
It must have sounded fine in preparation, in rehearsal.
But, upon delivery, it foundered upon a solid rock of economic and oil statistics constructed by the first minister.
'Brutal' language
More generally, though, isn't the nature of the attack intriguing? With an eye to elections, we already know that the SNP plan to draw a personal contrast between their man and Labour's leader.
This, it would seem, may be the prebuttal: that Alex Salmond is so personally obsessed with independence that he is unfit to govern. No doubt the leaflet is already in draft form.
The language is notably brutal. "Daft?" That's part of the common currency of what passes for political debate in these debased times.
Ditto dangerous and deluded. But "deranged"?
In any event, on the day, Mr Salmond was barely dented by the attack. Just as well, really, because he stumbled into a few minor linguistic problems of his own.
Responding to Tavish Scott on the topic of The Gathering, he was minded to mention the leader of Edinburgh City Council.
But could he remember the name? He knew she was called Jenny. So he tried "Jenny Geddes."
Chair gag
No, first minister, she was the woman who chucked a chair at the Minister of St Giles for using the Anglican Common Prayer Book.
To be fair, the FM - who undoubtedly reads his Sir Walter Scott - instantly recalled the said Geddes and divested himself of a chair gag.
Try again. "Jenny Gilmour?". Nope. Wasn't she one of the organisers of the Gathering?
Eventually, he resorted to "just Jenny" - before recalling that the council leader, a Liberal Democrat, is Jenny Dawe.
Throughout his mind search, the first minister remained in hugely good humour. Indeed, he seemed dapper, diligent, dedicated and diplomatic.
Some might demur but must would say: "FMQs? A dawdle." Today, at least.
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Brian Taylor | 16:15 UK time, Tuesday, 28 September 2010
A sensible and sagacious Scottish politician recently observed to me that elections are won, broadly, from three stratagems or combinations thereof.
Those are: time for change; trust the people, not the machine; and the right person for the job.
In his conference speech, Ed Miliband deployed the first two, thereby inviting the audience in the hall in Manchester to infer the third.
Intriguingly, though, those first two stratagems were deployed with regard to his own party, not his opponents.
With regard to the Tories, he cited areas of agreement while stressing his fundamental disagreement on the pace and scope of spending cuts.
With regard to the Lib Dems, he backed the Alternative Vote and, obliquely, praised that party's history by listing Liberals such as Lloyd George among his political heroes.
Think of that change message. It is commonly deployed just before an election.
It was used with obvious success by Alex Salmond at the last Holyrood election.
War 'wrong'
But, as Labour leader at Westminster, Ed Miliband won't face a direct electoral challenge for years.
Rather, the change he envisaged and offered was from the immediate past of his own party.
Labour had become complacent, naïve about the power of the markets, "the prisoner of its own certainties".
In particular, he declared that the Iraq war was plain wrong.
Further, he sought to counter suggestions that he is in hock to the unions by condemning "overblown rhetoric about waves of irresponsible strikes".
On "trusting the people", he suggested that New Labour had been tarnished on occasion by the elite company kept, had become the establishment machine rather than the restless agent of change.
This, though, was an introduction, a declaration of intent, not a substantive essay.
'Living wage'
It told us what he is not, what he hopes to offer - not, yet, his detailed position on, for example, tax, Trident or immigration.
Understandable, given that he has been in post for just three days.
However, there were clear pointers: support for a "living wage", the idea championed by Iain Gray in his conference speech; a declaration (echoes of Robin Cook) that foreign and defence policy must be governed by values, not simply ancient alliances; and a desire to prevent employers from using cheap migrant labour to undermine conditions for others.
On all fronts, though, work still in progress - particularly with regard to that third stratagem.
Getting Scotland
Brian Taylor | 12:45 UK time, Monday, 27 September 2010
Ed, we are conjoined to believe, "gets Scotland".
It is said that Mrs Miliband's younger - and now more prominent - son understands the concept of a distinct Scottish body politic.
This might simply mean, cynics will say, that he is content to treat Scotland with benign neglect, untroubled by developments north of Hadrian's Wall.
Not so, says Iain Gray. Ed "gets Scotland" in two ways: appreciating the need to underline the status of the Scottish party; and appreciating that Scotland will provide the first test of his leadership, with the Holyrood elections in May.
"Getting Scotland", by that interpretation, should mean a place for Mr Gray in the party's National Executive Committee - what we journalists were once pleased to call the "ruling NEC".
It should mean an enhanced emphasis upon policy autonomy for the Scottish party.
As I have noted frequently, the party which legislated for Scottish devolution remains the least devolved of the political parties in spirit.
Longer term, it might even mean a further evolution of Mr Gray's role from the present confines as "leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament".
Discontented voters
Will Scotland "get Ed?" Depends on what he says, depends on what he offers, most notably in his conference speech here in Manchester tomorrow.
Among delegates, there is a sense of anticipation - but also of apprehension: concern that he may not be able to define his political and economic stance in a fashion which appeals to discontented voters.
Concern, in short, that the party's arcane electoral system has generated the wrong result.
And what of Scotland? Iain Gray produced a policy announcement today. It was one which will cost money rather than save it.
The plan for a "living wage", currently set at £7.15 an hour, is of relatively limited scope.
It would apply to those public sector employees who do not currently receive such a wage.
Labour would then attempt to persuade private sector employers, through such devices as procurement contracts, to follow suit.
It would cost £20m - but Labour argues that the experience in Glasgow, where the city council pursued such a course, is that absenteeism declines, improving efficiency.
It would also involve a fiscal transfer from Edinburgh to London.
That would happen because improving the pay of public servants would, in some cases, lift them out of tax credits.
The Scottish government would face the cost of paying the higher wages while the tax credit money saved would revert to the Treasury.
For Iain Gray, though, this is a declaration of priorities: an assertion that, within difficult economic circumstances, he would still find money for the lowest paid as advance compensation for the cuts to come.
It is a statement of values.
And those cuts? We get the Comprehensive Spending Review from the Chancellor on October 20.
Within a month from that, John Swinney will spell out his consequential Scottish budget decisions.
Balancing books
At that point, Labour will offer a critical narrative upon the Swinney plans, perhaps indicating what they like; certainly stressing what they dislike.
But there will be no shadow Budget from Labour in Scotland.
No full, detailed indication of how they would balance the books, how they would do the sums.
That will be reserved for the party's manifesto in advance of the May elections.
This will be a source of contention.
Unless there is sufficient outline detail in the response to Mr Swinney, Labour will face pressure from their rivals - governmental and opposition - to show more of their hand.
To say what they would do about the economy, about public spending.
"Soporific tendencies"
Few things delight a politician more than being able to cite external support for their arguments.
In that respect, they resemble publishers or theatre producers who quote happily, if sometimes selectively, from reviews of their oeuvres.
You know the sort of thing. "This play is both interesting and new", the billboard will shriek, neglecting to add the rest of the quote: "Sadly, the new bits are not interesting and the interesting bits are not new."
Today at Holyrood Alex Salmond turned to the Sage of the Scotsman to spice up his replies.
The Sage? Bill Jamieson, of course.
The worthy Bill takes a full page in the Scotsperson to diagnose the SNP's electoral problems - but to suggest that they have a counter-weight; to wit, the calibre of their Labour opponents.
In particular, Mr Salmond quoted at length - and with obvious approval - the suggestion by Mr Jamieson that Labour's Iain Gray has soporific tendencies.
No doubt pressed for time, Mr Salmond found himself unable to feature the conclusion of the article in which the bold Bill also questioned the intrinsic purpose of the SNP leader.
Government 'failure'
Still, the quotation, triumphantly delivered, enabled the first minister to land a hit, a very palpable hit, upon the Labour leader.
The exchanges had focused upon the economy and public spending.
Mr Gray suggested that the SNP leader had failed in his government's declared purpose, to grow the economy.
Labour's essential purpose is to plant in the public mind the concept of a "Salmond slump".
That, one supposes, would be in addition to the financial crisis and recession of the past few years.
Again, presumably, it was lack of time which prevented Mr Gray from reminding MSPs which party held sway at the Treasury while those catastrophic events occurred.
Ah, the liberation of opposition. No longer does Iain Gray have to defend UK economic policies.
He can lambast both the Scottish and UK governments simultaneously.
Lambasting governments
To be fair, Mr Gray's core point was that there were cuts in progress now, in nursing and teaching posts, which would impact upon Scotland's economic prospects.
Again, though, the snag for the Labour leader is that Mr Salmond has a ready answer. Two, in fact.
He can lambast the UK governments, past and present, for the overall handling of the economy which, he says, has brought about the cuts in spending.
Plus he can - and did - argue that his government can only make a significant impact upon the post-recession economy by gaining and deploying the full range of fiscal and financial levers currently reserved to Westminster.
As to the others, Tavish Scott pursued the problems with the Commonwealth Games at Delhi.
Both Mr Salmond and, earlier, the Sports Minister Shona Robison were notably emollient, no doubt partly with an eye to preventing any backlash which might damage the Glasgow games in 2014.
And there were intriguing exchanges between the first minister and Annabel Goldie. These confirmed that the Scottish Government is preparing options with regard to the longer-term funding of universities.
"Innovative" plans
Mr Salmond was firm: no to up-front tuition fees. I believe he has also set his face against reviving the graduate endowment.
After all, the abolition of that levy will feature substantially in the SNP's list of claimed gains from their tenure in office.
Instead, a forthcoming Green Paper may feature around five options, including possibly a graduate tax and other "innovative" plans.
Scotland awaits with interest.
'Smoking ban moment' denied
Brian Taylor | 11:25 UK time, Wednesday, 22 September 2010
And so minimum pricing for alcohol has been vetoed by MSPs - or, more precisely, thwarted at committee stage.
It remains open to ministers to seek to reintroduce the plan at stage three, under consideration by the whole parliament.
This they will do: one, because they believe the policy is correct and, two, because it will oblige their opponents, all their opponents, to show their hand - or at least their button-pushing finger - in full open session.
Opponents of the measure say it is impractical; that it would not deter hardened drinkers; that it would simply put money in supermarket tills; and that it might encourage countries elsewhere to introduce a punitive "health tax" on Scotch whisky.
Supporters of the measure point to the backing they have received from senior figures in the health service and the police: those, in short, who deal with the worst consequences of Scotland's alcohol problem.
The electoral consequences? I doubt whether this particular issue, important though it is, will sway substantial numbers of votes at the next Holyrood elections: at least, by comparison with the much bigger impact of public spending cuts.
But it has added to the long-established mistrust between the SNP and Labour in particular.
No majority
Labour says the episode has demonstrated a Nationalist adherence to dogma, pursuing a course of action long after it had been repeatedly signalled that there was no parliamentary majority.
The SNP says that Labour's opposition to the measure was founded not on principle - but on a partisan wish to deny the Nationalist government its "smoking ban moment".
In particular, Nationalists say that Labour has been light on serious, sustainable alternative policies. Labour's commission, they say, was shown to be weak on empirical detail when subjected to committee examination at Holyrood.
The accusations from either side, needless to say, are denied by the other.
Sitting down and sorting it out
Intriguing argument from Jo Swinson on the wireless anent the wisdom of forming a coalition.
Intriguing but, partly, specious.
The Scottish Lib Dems deputy leader said that, in ordinary walks of life, folk generally had to get on with their colleagues.
In the workplace, for example, those with a different outlook on matters had to set those differences aside for the common good.
True, true. But, generally, the IT Department and Finance, for example, don't run preceding and subsequent campaigns suggesting that the members of the other lot should be kicked out.
Lib Dem and Tory politicians do exactly that. Indeed, Nick Clegg is rightly taking pains at his party's Liverpool federal conference to stress that the LibDems are a distinctive organisation who fought the Tories at the last UK election and will do so, vigorously, at the next.
It is not, therefore, purely the existence of coalition that is causing strain for the Lib Dems.
It is the contrast with previous statements: for example, with regard to VAT or the speed of spending cuts.
'Sort it out'
Where Ms Swinson is on surer ground is her assertion that folk generally like politicians to co-operate.
True, again. But, customarily, the popular desire for collaboration is inchoate.
They want politicians to "sit down together and sort it out" without always specifying what "it", the end objective, might be.
They want politicians to work together to do nice things, to make the sun shine.
Not to accelerate specific spending cuts, however much they may agree, in very general terms, that constraint is required.
So the LibDems face a tough period ahead, particularly in Scotland where the next electoral test is scheduled for May, the Holyrood elections.
Mr Clegg and his colleagues have three broad messages, each with varying degrees of potency: that the coalition was right and imperative, given the electoral arithmetic; that the people would not have forgiven the Lib Dems had they walked away from the challenge; and that the financial and fiscal medicine, although hard to swallow, will ultimately revive the patient.
His party colleagues must hope that the voters follow his syllogism to the conclusion.
Faith and reconciliation
The foreground, the image presented, is one of reconciliation and dialogue.
That is, of course, deliberately designed to contrast with a background, a history, which is one of conflict and tension.
Firstly, think of the theological and constitutional concatenation involved in the Queen and the Pope addressing each other at Holyrood Palace.
The Queen, Defender of the Faith, head of the Established church in England whose very origin involved a calculated break from Rome.
The Pope, head of that Roman Catholic faith.
Past tension
Some of that intrinsic past tension was reflected. Her Majesty referred to overcoming "old suspicions". His Holiness spoke of the need to stress the "deep Christian roots" present in British life.
Of course, both remarks also reflect the decline in avowed Christian faith generally, regardless of denomination.
In essence, the argument is that the Protestant and Catholic traditions should find ways to co-operate in the face of what the Pope called "aggressive" secularism: That they should recognise that they have an enemy in common rather than regarding each other as opponents.
Specifically, the Queen suggested that there should be a closer working relationship between the Roman Catholic church, the Church of England and the Kirk.
Other tensions, other conflict. It is certainly no accident that both the Queen and the Pope praised efforts to entrench peace in Northern Ireland. Religious conflict there has tended to generate rather more than "old suspicions".
Other tensions, other conflict. The Pope - once a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth - praised Britain's stand against Nazi tyranny.
Other tensions, newer tensions. The visit has been marred by the sustained scandal over child sex abuse within the Catholic church.
On the plane over, the Pope expressed his shock at these revelations alongside his sadness that the church had not acted with sufficient vigilance or speed.
Other tensions, older tensions. Those "old suspicions" were prominent in Scotland in the past, often virulently.
In the earlier part of the 20th Century, those suspicions had a political dimension. The Tories in Scotland were known as the Unionists and had a distinctly Orange tinge.
Labour cultivated votes among Catholics, some of whom were said to suspect that a distinct Scottish Assembly might resemble the old Stormont and were disquieted as a result.
It is against that background that the Scottish National Party has, for several decades, sought to neutralise and placate that Catholic disquiet, to prise Catholics from the offered embrace of the Labour Party.
That is just one of the reasons why First Minister Alex Salmond has been so effusive in his welcome to the Pope. The others being decency, courtesy, humanity and diplomatic dignity.
Sunny parade
Other tensions, older tensions. In visiting Scotland, the Pope is visiting a nation where the Reformation was intended to end the influence of Catholicism.
The Union of 1707 was designed to entrench the Protestant succession to the throne.
Article Two of the Union Treaty bars "Papists and persons marrying Papists" from wearing the Crown.
Such matters went, quite deliberately, unmentioned: a reflection of an altered, encompassing Scotland.
At Edinburgh Castle earlier this week, Cardinal O'Brien made a passing droll reference to the Reformation. Basily Fawlty style, I think he got away with it.
But these tensions, these conflicts, these old suspicions, these new concerns, are the deep background to the gloriously sunny parade, the Popemobile, the Papal tartan and the rest.
The tone, the endeavour, is of reconciliation - but also a reassertion of the function of faith in an apparently secularised society.
Mutually defending, if you like, not a solitary faith or denomination but the concept of faith itself.
Scottish unemployment - it's up again
Worrying figures yet again on Scottish unemployment.
The rate is up and the trend is worse than south of the border.
Politically, this has prompted two strands of debate. Firstly, the impact of coming spending cuts.
Secondly, an assessment of the nature of the Scottish economy.
In political circles, debate number one now centres around the depth and pace of cuts: not, mostly, whether those cuts should happen in the first place.
Political parties at Holyrood, as billed previously, are presently jockeying with each other as to which of them will show their hand first on spending strategy - or, more precisely, whether all the opposition parties will have a substantive response to offer to John Swinney's package when it emerges.
Longer term, debate number two may be more germane still. Is Scotland's private sector economy fundamentally stagnant or merely temporarily sluggish?
Enhancing growth
Is growth forever doomed to lag behind the UK average? Would changes in existing policy, within existing devolved powers, alter that? Or enhanced devolution? Or fiscal autonomy? Or independence?
Can a revitalised private sector replace the jobs which are bound to be lost in the public sector, once cuts are in place?
Or will that endeavour be neutralised or even reversed by the very impact of those cuts on, for example, private suppliers?
In response, we have the union sector broadly resisting cuts, most notably at the TUC.
We have the business sector attempting to straddle both debates by arguing that priority must be given within public spending to those programmes which sustain and enhance growth.
Good start but must try harder.
That will undoubtedly be the verdict of the opposition parties upon the latest plan for class sizes. Or at least the more polite and restrained among them.
More to the point, it will be Michael Russell's verdict upon his own scheme. He knows, he knows, that, as it stands, it falls short of the SNP's manifesto promise.
In summary, the education secretary is proposing to place a lower legal limit on the size of classes in Primary One.
The new limit, at 25, is designed to assist schools in capping class sizes where they face placing requests from parents. It will apply from 2011/12.
In confirming the policy, Mr Russell insisted that the SNP government would continue to pursue the manifesto objective of cutting class sizes to 18 or fewer in P1 to P3.
The contrast between aim and actuality, he said, was driven by "very difficult financial circumstances."
It remained open to individual councis to strive for the 18 target, deploying the "flexibility" inherent in the government's revised approach.
Broadly, Mr Russell's opponents will say to the electorate: "They promised. They failed."
Broadly, SNP Ministers will say to the electorate: "We promised. We made real progress in difficult circumstances. We will make more progress."
As ever, their pitch, your choice.
Good to talk?
It is understandable that the political parties in Scotland are seeking to find consensus with regard to the impact of the defence review.
Equally, it is understandable that there are problems standing in the path of that search.
Not least that the parties fundamentally disagree on small matters such as the very future of the United Kingdom which the forces under review are pledged to defend.
Today's cross-party talks focused, in particular, on the jobs impact should one or both of the aircraft carrier orders be cancelled.
There is also concern with regard to RAF bases.
The talks were described on all sides as "constructive" - which is what you say when there has been no agreement but the various parties have contrived to conclude the meeting without falling out openly.
Why can't they just agree? Why cannot they just say: give 'em the money and keep the jobs on the Clyde and at Rosyth?
Differing objectives
Because of party politics - and party political differences.
To stress, these are not minor obstacles, not invented problems. These politicians are in different parties because they pursue differing objectives.
Firstly, the party politics. It is relatively easy for the SNP and Labour to demand that the carrier contracts are maintained without amendment.
It is more tricky for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats - because those parties form the coalition UK government which is taking the decision on the defence review.
Longer term, they have to be wary of the impact upon their parties' credibility.
That does not mean that this is the defining characteristic ahead of all other considerations such as Scottish employment.
But, for serious parties, it is a factor to be borne in mind.
Next, defence policy. In order to achieve limited consensus on the carrier orders, the parties will have to focus narrowly upon aspects of defence, sidelining others.
In particular, they will have to sidestep their differences over the Trident nuclear deterrent.
Labour's Iain Gray commented of today's draft document from the Scottish government that "Faslane is not even mentioned", that it does not address "Scotland's crucial role as part of Britain's defence strategy."
From the Scottish government perspective, that is quite deliberate, not accidental neglect.
The SNP team made clear in advance that they would pursue the Trident issue with a separate approach in order to achieve consensus on the carriers, if at all possible.
In other words, their approach was designed, as they saw it, to be co-operative, not obstructive.
I cannot imagine that Nicola Sturgeon, who chaired today's talks, will find Mr Gray's remarks particularly helpful.
The Labour leader, however, also stresses the need to involve the unions in any combined submission.
It seems likely that this point will indeed have to be addressed.
The un-enlightenment
Brian Taylor | 14:07 UK time, Thursday, 9 September 2010
There was, in truth, little to enlighten any of us in this morning's public spending debate at Holyrood - with one or two exceptions.
But I did rather enjoy the sally from Jeremy Purvis of the Lib Dems, aimed at Finance Secretary John Swinney.
Mr Swinney, he averred, was occasionally inclined to "conflate providing a response with answering a question." JS looked suitably ministerial: that is, grim.
Frankly, most of the debate was occupied with responses rather than answers. To be fair, that is because we do not yet have firm figures upon which to base a detailed assessment.
For Labour, Andy Kerr's speech was chiefly dedicated to bemoaning that fact.
He argued the finance secretary should produce figures now - so that Labour could respond constructively/give him a kicking (delete according to which you think is more likely.)
Mr Swinney noted, with dry resignation, that he was unable to produce figures because the Scottish Budget was predicated upon consequentials from the UK Comprehensive Spending Review. Which does not emerge until October 20.
Ah, said Mr Kerr, but you know to within £200m what the figure is likely to be. Go on, have a shottie.
Mr Swinney declined, noting, in the same dry tone, that it was not the business of government to guess.
Mr Kerr persisted - and was only faintly discomfited when he was advised by the wily Bruce Crawford that the Welsh Assembly Government (main proprietor, Labour) was proposing to publish its financial plans in November. After the CSR. In exactly the same fashion as the Scottish government.
To be fair to Mr Kerr, Mr Swinney gave very few pointers either as to how he intended to proceed. To be fair to Mr Swinney, that is because he is still working on his package and has yet to obtain the final details.
To be fair to both - and to the others - they stressed that they were willing to seek consensus where possible.
May be difficult given the extent of the cuts. May be impossible given pending elections.
The minister's argument is that nothing would be gained by providing a draft based on incomplete figures.
Nothing, he argued further, would be gained by offering a detailed response now to the Independent Budget Review which was the topic of the debate.
All would be revealed in his own Budget, in November.
Mr Swinney repeated the bald figures: projections of a £3.7bn real terms reduction in the Scottish DEL budget between this year and 2014-15; a cut of some £1.7bn in real terms for next year.
He stated a determination to enhance efficiency; to protect the economy where possible; to preserve NHS spending, recycling efficiencies internally; to defend free personal care; to streamline the quango network; to consult on the government's wish to maintain the council tax freeze; and to curb public sector pay.
But details in each case would emerge at the time of his response to the CSR. In November.
Perhaps the boldest speech came from Derek Brownlee for the Tories. It was a thoughtful, serious performance.
He dismissed the notion that the finance secretary should have a dry run for the budget. Instead, he focused on what might need to be sacrificed in the real thing.
Mr Brownlee suggested a pay freeze on public sector salaries above £21k; a recruitment freeze, allowing turnover to cut costs; cancellation or delay for some capital projects; measures to curb concessionary fares, if possible by negotiation with transport operators; and opposition to reducing prescription charges.
Of course, the extent of the spending challenge will require more than that. I suspect Mr Brownlee is alert to that fact.
As are the others.
Devolution over?
Brian Taylor | 16:07 UK time, Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Devolution is over. Says who? The first minister, that's who.
Setting out his new legislative programme, Alex Salmond argued that only independence could now reverse economic decline.
In essence, his case was that such gains as there have been under devolved self-government are at an end.
Mr Salmond did not seem quite at his most forceful best. He appeared troubled by a frog in his throat.
Perhaps, too, there was a lingering effect from another beast: the dog that didn't bark.
Because, as billed, the first minister's legislative programme does not include provision for a referendum on independence.
However, I would not wish to overstate all this. Even a little short of max drive, the first minister is a highly effective politician.
There was substance, too, to the programme: the measures on Scottish Water, double jeopardy, housing, forced marriages.
None, however, quite provides a defining leitmotif for the final session of this SNP government.
That comes in two forms: the attempt to wrestle with spending cuts via the Budget Bill. And the absent referendum.
In essence, Mr Salmond conjoined the two. His government, he said, would cope as capably as possible with the necessity to produce a balanced spending programme within a fixed budget.
At the same time, they would appeal to the voters for an enhanced mandate in order to enable them to to revive the notion of a referendum, thwarted by opponents.
Pointed attack
It would not be independence for its own sake - but to build the economy. In that sense, the SNP campaign will not be purely about independence - but primarily about the economy and public expenditure.
Also as billed, Mr Salmond's move on the referendum left him open to ridicule from his opponents.
Labour's Iain Gray deployed humour to substantial effect in lampooning the FM. The words were well-chosen, the attack pointed and effective.
Of course, oppositional attack has its limits. Sooner or later, as the budget controversy develops, Labour will come under pressure to declare its own hand with regard to spending plans.
Election anyone?
Brian Taylor | 12:39 UK time, Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Perhaps Scotland's cabinet, meeting in Kilmarnock, will permit themselves a few moments of self-congratulation with regard to notably positive crime figures.
Then again, perhaps not. Ministers know that it takes constant, sustained effort in order to peg back crime.
Further, they know that the issue of police numbers is shaping up to be salient at the coming election.
Firstly, those crime stats. The number of crimes recorded in Scotland has fallen to the lowest level for 32 years. Cause for celebration, albeit restrained (see above.)
Against that, the number of sexual crimes is up which may reflect increased prevalence or an increased readiness to report.
Secondly, to the politics. Ever blunt, Kenny MacAskill congratulated the cops for their efforts in tackling "the bevvy and blades culture that continues to blight Scotland."
But, ever alert, he also noted sensibly that there remain far too many victims of crime. In other words, his tone remained cautious.
In response, Labour offered what is becoming a standard theme: that there will be "SNP cuts" to come which could reverse the increase in police numbers and, potentially, the presumably concomitant reduction in crime.
Presumably, Mr MacAskill will note, gently or otherwise, that his government, in cohort with the Tories, has funded the recruitment of 1000 additional officers which, he would argue, would not have occurred under Labour whose manifesto emphasis was slanted rather towards education investment.
But, judging from today's comments, that will not deter Labour from complaining about any subsequent cuts in police strength - despite facing the claim that they did not back such recruitment in the first place.
Equally, the Tories are selective in their congratulations. They condemn the SNP as "soft touch", reserving their words of praise for the police - and for themselves for driving the recruitment demand in the first place.
Election, anyone?
Tactical switch
Brian Taylor | 14:25 UK time, Monday, 6 September 2010
This is about tactics. Not, strictly, about policy.
That Alex Salmond backs independence preceded by a referendum will, I suspect, come as a surprise to few.
I think we may deal relatively briefly with some associated matters.
As elected First Minister, Mr Salmond is entitled to pursue a referendum on independence along with other elements of his manifesto.
As elected FM, he is entitled to commission staff in the Scottish government to work towards that objective.
He is entitled to devote resources, within reason, to sustaining that objective.
Opposition members may argue that the money / staff time has been poorly spent; that it could have been better diverted to other issues.
However, that is a political point, not a constitutional one.
The spending and staff time were both legitimate.
Defining aim
Secondly, it does not seem to me that this is an ego trip by Alex Salmond, as some have suggested.
Independence is the defining aim of his party.
He is entitled to pursue it - just as Labour politicians pursued devolution when there were voices raised by rivals saying that the project was a waste of time and money.
Further, he is entitled to pursue it in his own fashion.
Perhaps, it might be argued, he should have advanced referendum legislation before now.
Mr Salmond might reasonably retort that he had to search for a reasonable prospect of success in such a venture.
So, again, this controversy is not about whether there should or should not be a referendum on independence.
That dispute has run for some time and will, I suspect, run up to and through the next Holyrood elections.
Rather it is about how Alex Salmond and his party deal with the likely - now, inevitable - thwarting of that policy objective by opposition parties at Holyrood who, on this issue, have conjoined to form a majority.
On that, Alex Salmond has changed his mind.
He has, if you like, performed a U-turn.
Previously, he stressed that, eventually, his referendum legislation would be put before the Scottish Parliament in this term.
It was not like the measure to replace the council tax which was dropped in the face of majority opposition in Holyrood.
It was different: MSPs would be given a vote.
Timing tactics
The bill was delayed until Mr Salmond thought the moment propitious; until his government had time to prove its worth to the electorate.
Remember at all times the dual strategy: to govern sensibly and, where possible, consensually within the limits of devolution while simultaneously inviting the voters to conclude how much better things could be under independence.
Opposition critics may object to Mr Salmond's timing tactics. But he chose them with the objective of succeeding.
Then the bill was further delayed while the FM sought to persuade one other major party - in practice, the Liberal Democrats - to tolerate a plebiscite, perhaps with the alternative of enhanced fiscal powers also on the ballot paper.
Again, there may be complaints about this: that it was stretching the process beyond toleration.
But remember again: Mr Salmond chose this course for what he believed to be good reasons. He wanted his referendum to succeed.
Which brings us to the latest indications of ministerial thinking.
The bill will be published but will not now be introduced at Holyrood.
MSPs will not be given a chance to vote upon the measure.
Why? Because, we are told, the bill stands no chance of success, given the views of the SNP's opponents.
They argue that Scotland does not need a referendum on independence at this juncture where every effort should be focused on repairing the economy.
So this latest thinking is a response to the prospect of defeat.
And therein lies the tactical switch.
Fresh mandate
Previously, Mr Salmond believed that his bill might well go down - but that he would use that defeat to condemn wicked Unionists for thwarting the exercise of Scottish popular choice on Scotland's constitutional future.
Now he still says that he will appeal directly to the voters at the next election - but without first confronting Holyrood with the legislation.
He will seek a sufficient fresh mandate for the SNP.
In particular, he will argue at the next election that it is only with the powers of independence that Scotland can seek to reverse economic decline.
This change of tack leaves the first minister vulnerable.
Vulnerable to the most potent weapon in an opposition party's armoury: that of ridicule.
They will lampoon the FM. They will mock him.
Again, Mr Salmond says he will make his pitch directly to the voters, over the heads of Holyrood.
That, he believes, is a powerful position for a political leader: siding with the people against the machine.
Of course, Mr Salmond could have made just such a pitch even if he had chosen to introduce his bill and watch it face defeat at the hands of opponents.
Indeed, some argue that his pitch to the people would have been all the stronger, reinforced by evidence that rival parties were prepared to block a referendum.
In response, Mr Salmond indicates that he feared there would have been a feeling of finality about such a defeat; that it might seem to the electorate that the referendum issue was finished.
His call, your choice.
Not, in the immediate future, at a referendum. But at the elections next year.
The Blair-Brown effect
David Cairns MP, we salute you. That was a noble performance on the wireless this morning, discussing Tony Blair's memoirs.
According to Mr Cairns, the real interest in the Blair apologia should lie in his prescription for the future of the Labour Party. Aye, as they would say in Mr Cairns constituency, right.
Of course, the thoughtful Mr Cairns knows perfectly well that the Blair memoirs carry weight in direct proportion to their analysis of the author's own past years in government; not future political prospects.
In particular, they are fascinating in their confirmation - if one were needed - that relations were less than cordial between Blair and Brown. The former Chancellor, according to the former PM, could be "maddening".
Right back at you, G Brown might say in his own forthcoming book. Or perhaps not. The word from some is that the Brown tome is an intense dissertation on the economic crisis and his part in tackling it.
Then we have the Third Man, Lord Mandelson. I was in the audience at the Edinburgh Book Festival as he gently dissected those who had exasperated him down the years. Diverting from the true New Labour path, he said, would be to enter a cul de sac.
The best question came right at the end from an audience member who asked him to define the adjective "Mandelsonian". Subtle, he essayed, before adding a few other epithets and ending with "loyal". Loyal, one wondered, to whom.
Two further elements from the Mandelson performance. One, he offered a robust defence of his party's performance in government, citing key policy issues.
Two, he suggested that previous governments - post-war Attlee, Wilson, Major - had similarly featured clashes in personality at the very top.
That is undoubtedly true. But were those contests not largely about policy or raw power? There appears to be an added psychological tension in the emerging stories about the Blair/Brown period.
Does any of this have a continuing impact, other than to market rival books? I believe it does. It has a potential impact upon Labour's performance and upon the leadership contest.
Peter Mandelson, in particular, is inviting the contenders to define themselves at least partly in relation to what has gone before, to the Blairite agenda which, he notes, won three elections.
They have to choose whether to take up that invitation - or whether to seek to shape a new narrative of their own.
Either way, I suspect the contenders and the party in Scotland, facing elections next year, would welcome a pause in these exercises in exculpation. Nae luck, as they might also say down David Cairns' way.
« August 2010 | | October 2010 »
I'm Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland's political editor, and I'll be blogging here regularly on Scottish politics.
For the latest updates across BBC blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
Subscribe to Blether with Brian
You can stay up to date with Blether with Brian via these feeds.
Blether with Brian Feed(RSS)
Blether with Brian Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Latest from BBC News blogs
Nick Robinson:
"Britain is standing by to give more money to the IMF so that it can, in turn, lend more money..."
Douglas Fraser:
"With a mighty thud, the Ledger has been slammed shut. Thanks for reading it. But it's not finished - far..."
Brian Taylor:
"Thank you for reading my blog. It has now moved to a new home, with a fresh format. Visit my..."
Betsan Powys:
"It was an inspired conversation. What shall we call a blog written by someone called Betsan? How about ... Betsan's..."
Richard Black:
"Thanks for having read my blog over the last few years. As of today, it is moving to a new..."
Jonathan Amos:
"Things are changing. The BBC's Spaceman has been assigned a new ship for his thoughts. So, as of today, this..."
Our blog about issues in News
Our blog about issues in Sport
Our blog about photos and News
Our freedom-of-information blog
BBC Internet Blog
Radio 4 Blog and 5 Live Blog
Magazine Monitor and See Also
On the move(3)
Minimal swearing(119)
Salmond's day(139)
Alternative prospectus(188)
A job of many parts(162)
Moving on(156)
Blog Wall Monday(140)
Shout of joy for SNP(285)
Early word(133)
Final campaign mission(96)
Past twelve months
Latest contributors

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
require 'sprockets'
require 'redjs-sprockets'

GET_SPROCKETS = proc do

  sprockets = Sprockets::Environment.new

  sprockets.append_path CASES_DIR

  RedJS::Sprockets.auto_usage_paths << CASES_DIR + '/auto_usage'
  RedJS::Sprockets.register sprockets

  sprockets

end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Driving Russia's Cancer Patients to Suicide (Op-Ed)
By	Anna Pivovarchuk
In February last year, the suicide of a distinguished navy commander rattled Russia's social sphere. Former Rear Admiral Vyacheslav Apanasenko died in the hospital after attempting to shoot himself, following a prolonged battle with cancer. "Do not blame anyone but the Health Ministry and the government. I was prepared to suffer, but watching my loved ones struggle has proven too much," his suicide note said.
His death wasn't an exception: Just that March, at least another eight cancer patients took their lives.
Moscow's deputy mayor for social issues, Leonid Pechatnikov, however, did not seem too shaken. He blamed not the health services, but seasonal affective disorder (a standing joke excuse for all sorts of questionable behavior in Russia) for the increase in suicides, saying: "People don't want to torture themselves, or their relatives. This is their version of euthanasia."
In a better world this situation would lead to a swift reconsideration of policy and reform, and a call for the deputy mayor's resignation. But Pechatnikov is still in office, and, just in February this year alone, a further 11 cancer patients took their own lives, with at least four more following in May including a pensioner, a nuclear scientist and a psychology professor.
The problem behind this barbaric situation is manifold and lies in the way painkillers are currently prescribed to patients. Until recently, a three-step system was in place: First, an oncologist needs to advise on the type of painkiller required. This seemingly easy step becomes a problem outside of the big cities, where the nearest specialist might be miles away.
Next, a local general practitioner writes the prescription, which then needs to be approved by a hospital administrator or head physician. There is no guarantee that these people necessarily work in the same hospital, and then the prescription is valid for five days only.
Anyone who has ever had to face Russian bureaucracy, inherited from the days of the Soviet Union, where customer service was nonexistent, can only imagine the trauma faced by relatives of patients whose unbearable pain remains in the hands of multiple officials.
The next stage of this compounding problem lies with the pharmacies. A prescription is only valid for a specific pharmacy — strict anti-drug regulations make it difficult for pharmacies to stock morphine-based drugs. If the prescribed medication is not in stock, the prescription becomes invalid, and the whole process begins again.
Substitutions are not permitted either; for instance, two 75 mg pain-relief plasters cannot be given out instead of a 150 mg one. To make matters worse, it is also impossible to get new medication without returning the packaging from the previous dose.
The result of these practices is perhaps unsurprising. Speaking at a forum of the Movement Against Cancer last year, Professor Yelena Telnova of the Institute of General Health, stated that only 40 percent of the necessary palliative drugs are being delivered to pharmacies across Russia; Moscow is at 10 percent.
According to the head of palliative medicine at the Health Ministry, Diana Nevzorova, only 4 percent of cancer patients in Moscow receive adequate pain treatment. Across the country, only 8.8 percent receive necessary opiate-based pain relief.
The Russian Health Ministry clarified back in 2014 that any doctor has a right to prescribe painkillers, and only needs one more signature from the head doctor or his deputy. The ministry directives issued in July 2013 have apparently not been implemented, which the ministry blames on regional inertia.
The federal health care watchdog found that only 3 percent of patients are receiving the drugs through the new, easier system in Moscow. In 40 percent of cases, morphine is still being approved by medical committees and not the prescribing physician.
Many doctors are afraid to prescribe morphine, fearing persecution by the Federal Drug Control Service (FSKN). The case of 73-year-old doctor Alevtina Khorinyak — who prescribed Tramadol to a patient with terminal cancer not formally in her care and was convicted by a Krasnoyarsk court of drug trafficking — caused public outrage. Both Khorinyak and a family friend who purchased the medication were also sentenced, but eventually acquitted on appeal.
Such cases, however, force doctors to stay on the side of caution and, by default, inhumane cruelty. Given that overall legal drug sales comprise just a mere 0.7 percent of the 87 tons of confiscated illegal drugs, to say that FSKN officials' efforts are misplaced seems far too kind.
In January this year alone, prices for life-supporting drugs have increased by 3.4 percent, according to the Health Ministry. Last year, overall increase was at around 12.5 percent. There are around 287,000 terminally ill children in Russia, but there are currently no non-invasive palliative treatments for children due to "economic inefficiency."
At the same time, cancer rates continue to grow. According to Russia's chief oncologist, Dr. Valery Chissov, the number of cancer cases is rising by 1.5 percent a year, with about 500,000 new cases diagnosed annually. With around $30 spent on cancer treatment per person a year, Russia is at the bottom of the world's rankings, with basic chronic pain relief training for physicians, psychological support for patients and families, and specialized facilities such as hospices remaining largely nonexistent.
Following Apanasenko's suicide, the FSKN called for further easing on palliative care. A new law is due to take effect on July 1, 2015 that will increase the validity of prescriptions to 15 days and officially remove the need to return old medical packaging.
Russia is an expansive country, with an even more formidable bureaucracy. The slow pace of any real reform regarding the right to a dignified death is indicative of not only failures at a ministerial level, but of the outdated perceptions among the public and physicians, who still view a cancer diagnosis as a sure death sentence, often unaware of treatment options and rights available to them.
In the midst of a major overhaul of the medical system across the country, which will cut jobs, funding and medical facilities in an already-malfunctioning system, it is difficult to see how new, even well-meaning directives, can ever be effectively implemented.
The proposal to prioritize drug manufacturers from the Eurasian Economic Union, if accepted, will add the variable of potentially poor-quality drugs and limited choice to the current unbalanced equation.
In a 2014 interview, Nyuta Federmesser, director of hospice aid group Hope, said that Rear Admiral Apanasenko's death and Alevtina Khorinyak's case are effective media talking points, but not enough to make the scale of the problem understood by the government.
Eighteen months and more than a dozen reported suicides later, how many people will have to take their lives until a critical mass is reached to begin work on a health care system that will actually benefit the people it purports to treat?
Anna Pivovarchuk is the deputy managing editor and culture editor of Fair Observer.
The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times.
Nemtsov Is Russia's Latest Lamb to the Slaughter
With the war in eastern Ukraine escalating anti-Russian sentiment in Europe and the United States, and public opinion in Russia itself becoming stridently...
Silent Deaths: The Price of a Russian Soldier's Life
The revelations made by the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers about the number of Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine are just another example of the...
Russian Culture: Back in the U.S.S.R.
With new repressive laws on media and the Internet, public smear campaigns and travel restrictions, Russia seems to be regressing back to the Soviet...
Michele A. Berdy
50 Ways to Leave Your Government
The resignation of the Russian government produced a great crop of humor.


text:
Trees and Shrubs of Kenya, es un libro con ilustraciones y descripciones botánicas que fue escrito por el  botánico; Ivan Robert Dale (1904-1963)  y publicado en el año 1961.

Referencias

Enlaces externos
en Amazon

Libros de botánica
Libros de 1961
Libros en inglés

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
GoodReader SDK Available to iPhone and iPad App Developers
February 12, 2013 in iOS Development (E)
[prMac.com] Topeka, Kansas - GoodReader, the world's best-selling document reader for iPhone and iPad, now offers a Software Development Kit (SDK), enabling 3rd-party software developers for the iPhone or iPad to take advantage of GoodReader's powerful file viewing and annotation capabilities, as well as GoodReader's versatile server access options. The SendToGoodReader SDK enables developers to offer their own customers the ability to send files and folders directly to GoodReader for reading and PDF annotation, without having to go through any menus, then receive an annotated PDF file back to their app once the user is done with it.
Good.iWare, the developer of GoodReader, has often been asked by software development companies to allow them to use GoodReader's market-leading PDF reading and annotation technologies in their own apps. For developers whose apps produce readable data files, such as PDFs downloaded from secure corporate servers or files with some app-specific data generated on-the-fly, the ability to offer their customers the same high level of reading and annotating experience as GoodReader provides is a huge advantage.
SendToGoodReader SDK provides a quick and convenient way to pass files and folders from third-party apps directly to GoodReader and, optionally, save those files back to the originating app. The process of sending files to GoodReader and receiving them back does not require an internet connection, providing a smooth transfer of files between apps without users worrying about incurring additional charges, or contending with slow or missing internet connections. It also doesn't force users to go through a menu with a selection of target apps, making the transfer process a convenient one-click operation.
"Until now, iOS offered the only way to exchange files between apps on the same device - the "Open In..." function," said Yuri Selukoff, president of Good.iWare. "We believe that our SDK offers a more advanced and convenient way of providing GoodReader's file viewing and annotation capabilities to users of other apps."
Using SendToGoodReader SDK, developers will not only be able to transfer single files one-by-one, but also complex collections of files and folders containing an entire hierarchy of data. With just a click of the "Save Back" button within GoodReader, the annotated file will be quickly saved back to the originating app. This entire process happens without users having to go through an extra step of selecting a target app from a system menu, such as using the standard "Open In..." functionality.
"We hope app developers will appreciate the ease-of-use of our SDK design, and believe such cooperation and app integration will result in a great benefit for their customers," Selukoff says.
About GoodReader:
Since its release, the iPad version of GoodReader has achieved #1 in sales in the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Spain and many others. GoodReader is known as the top document reader for viewing, navigating and annotating large PDF documents on an iPhone and iPad. Besides its annotate and text search capabilities, other key GoodReader features are active hyperlinks, which enable users to more easily navigate within the document or launch a linked document or website, and PDF Reflow. GoodReader has also set the standard for iOS document readers in the enterprise, offering a high level of document security and synchronization with remote servers. Versions of GoodReader for iPhone and iPad are available in the App Store for $4.99.
Software Development Kit
GoodReader for iPad in the App Store
GoodReader for iPhone in the App Store
Good.iWare focuses on creating quality mobile applications for the iPhone and iPad. For more information, visit the company's website. Copyright (C) 2013 Good.iWare. All Rights Reserved. Apple, the Apple logo, iPhone, iPod and iPad are registered trademarks of Apple Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries.
Kevin Doel
"I have developed 14 educational math apps for iPhone and iPod touch and have used prMac to tell about all of them to the press. It is the best option for Mac, iPad and iPhone developers. For my latest app I used their press release writing service and I was very satisfied with the way they handled my press release and took into account my every wish. I recommend prMac to all Mac, iPad and iPhone developers."
Esa Helttula - iDevBooks
Development | PDF | Text | Documents | Viewer | Navigating | SDK | Annotation | Manuals | iOS
"Our company needed a press release to announce a new version of our software. We didn't really know where to start, and we didn't have the time to learn the ins and outs of writing and distributing press releases. We contacted prMac and signed up for their writing and distribution service. They quickly engaged with us - taking initiative to learn about our product and our market. They helped us turn some basic statements about our company and our product into a full fledged press release. The end result was a very successful press release that helped our product gain visibility. prMac was extremely professional, and they showed a genuine interest in helping us succeed. I strongly recommend prMac to anyone who needs writing or distribution of press releases, and we will definitely use them in the future."
Dyami Caliri - D-Zed Software


text:
package com.github.metaprgmr.gapi_flat.samples;

import static java.lang.System.out;
import static com.github.metaprgmr.util.Helper.*;

import java.util.List;
import com.github.metaprgmr.gapi_flat.YouTubeService;
import com.github.metaprgmr.gapi_flat.rt.GoogleAPIBase;
import com.google.api.services.youtube.model.LiveBroadcast;
import com.google.api.services.youtube.model.LiveBroadcastListResponse;

public class YouTubeDemo extends GoogleAPIBase {

	public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    	YouTubeService service = new YouTubeService(getYouTube());
    	LiveBroadcastListResponse response =
    			service.LiveBroadcasts_list(createAttrs("broadcastStatus", "all"), "id,snippet");

    	out.println("\n================== Returned Broadcasts ==================\n");
        List<LiveBroadcast> returnedList = response.getItems();
        for (LiveBroadcast broadcast : returnedList) {
            out.println("  - Id: " + broadcast.getId());
            out.println("  - Title: " + broadcast.getSnippet().getTitle());
            out.println("  - Description: " + broadcast.getSnippet().getDescription());
            out.println("  - Published At: " + broadcast.getSnippet().getPublishedAt());
            out.println("  - Scheduled Start Time: " + broadcast.getSnippet().getScheduledStartTime());
            out.println("  - Scheduled End Time: " + broadcast.getSnippet().getScheduledEndTime());
            out.println("\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n");
        }
	}

} // end of class.


text:
At age 91, the David B takes passengers to scenic spots along the Alaskan coast, but diesel buffs find her original engine and the job of keeping it humming just as exciting.
Dieter Loibner
A wobbly 14-second video shows part of the giant diesel engine, as tall as a man at 6 feet and as long as two at 12 feet. Three cylinders sit in line, the rocker arms and tappets frivolously exposed like fuel and oil lines. The whole assembly sounds like a loud sewing machine that's playing a waltz as intake and exhaust valve springs do their thing: compress and release.
If you are into old boats and engines, there's nothing quite like this Washington Iron Works three-cylinder diesel from 1929, with all its key parts fully uncovered and easily accessible. This magnificent machinery appears to have traveled in time from a different era when high tech was all mechanical, and when power was doled out by the teaspoon.
It produces only 100 hp, good for 6.5 knots cruising and 7 knots WOT at 350 rpm. That's placid by today's standards, but this engine has been around for 90 years, doing duty as the main propulsion system of the David B, a charming little cruise ship that was fastidiously restored and now plies the waters between her home port of Bellingham, Washington, and scenic points far to the north.
"It's the oldest running Washington Iron Works diesel," says Jeffrey Smith, 50, the David B's co-owner and captain. "When we got her, it was the oldest [Washington Iron Works engine] in existence. Typically, they were used in generators and logging equipment."
The 65-foot, 67-ton vessel that the engine powers is named for David W. Branch, once a manager at the cannery firm of Libby, McNeill & Libby. Built from Douglas fir planks on steam-bent oak, and laminated fir frames by Lake Washington Shipyard in Houghton, Washington, the David B launched in 1929 and went north to the cannery in Ekuk on the Nushagak River. There, she worked for about 25 years, towing a fleet of small, unmotorized fishing boats to their salmon fishing grounds and back. Then, things changed in the early 1950s.
First, the river altered course, which left the David B high and dry on a beach. Then, the economics of commercial fishing shifted, rendering the decades-old vessel obsolete. She fell on hard times, which lasted until 1998, when Smith and his wife, Christine, found the boat on Lopez Island, Washington. They bought and restored her to near-original condition under their corporate banner, Northwest Navigation.
The David B is powered by this Washington Iron Works three-cylinder diesel from 1929 that produces just 100 hp.
Until their first passenger trip in 2006, they toiled for the boat and sleuthed to find engine parts, an odyssey neatly chronicled in Christine Smith's book, More Faster Backwards, published in 2011.
The David B's amenities include a deck-level galley with a wood-burning stove, a salon with panoramic views, and four guest staterooms with private heads. Eight passengers can sign up for the experience of adventure cruising and witnessing the beauty of the Inside Passage, the fjords and the wildlife of the Tongass National Forest.
The owners take pride in keeping their guests happy while preserving their classic boat and introducing upgrades in quasi-homeopathic doses—by adding navigation and communication electronics, for instance, or replacing the old glassed-over, tongue-and-groove deck above the galley with lighter, stronger and watertight aluminum. It's also become nearly impossible to source parts for the diesel, so Jeffrey Smith makes them in his machine shop.
He added blowers to the engine room to lower the ambient temperature, which used to reach 115 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, it's about 85 degrees Fahrenheit. And he installed a sophisticated skimmer system to separate engine oil from the bilge water before pumping it overboard.
Wrenches for regular engine maintenance are stored in military order.
The lifeblood for the Washington Iron Works is 40-weight oil. About a gallon of the stuff gets distributed to 74 ports every two hours while the boat is underway. The captain and mate normally do it, sharing the duties for running the ship and serving passengers. Only once in a while, guests volunteer as oilers and wipers.
Last September, on the southward trip from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Bellingham, Dan McGuire of Santa Cruz, California, who restores old boats and builds bottle ships (see Soundings April 2019), and Ron Fletcher, a retired diesel mechanic from Vancouver, British Columbia, wanted to be part of the David B's business side, happily reporting for duty when it was time to administer 10W-40 oili to valve rocker gear, push tubes, rockers, followers and injectors. They also drizzled some Marvel Mystery Oil on valve stems.
The diesel has to be oiled every two hours while under way, a job that can be done by guests, if interested.
"David B's engine is quite different, with a marine gear for reverse forward and neutral," Fletcher says. Having taught diesel mechanics at Vancouver Community College, he's a subject matter expert who'd learned about exactly these types of engines many years ago in a class designed to produce engineers for the towboat industry.
The Washington Iron Works diesel also was ahead of its time, Fletcher reckons, because of a common-rail fuel system, which is typical for contemporary marine diesels. "The difference is, of course, fuel pressure," he says. On the 65-foot David B, with her mechanical spray valves, the maximum is 3,000 to 5,000 psi, while today's diesels use piezoelectric injectors and up to 50,000 psi.
Christine and Jeffrey Smith.
Christine Wright
Last, Fletcher was impressed by the quick starts that compressed air produced. "There's no cranking forever," he says. "She just fired up instantly."
That's a good thing, because weighing anchor on the David B requires running the main engine. A dog clutch connects the engine shaft to the windlass. Once it is engaged, the rotating shaft runs forward and gears up to the windlass, which then reels in the ground tackle.
DAVID B : Length: 65'0" Beam: 16'0" Draft: 7'0" Displ.: 134,000 lbs.
Christine Smith
After an estimated 45,000 total lifetime operating hours, Jeffrey Smith says, the engine is best checked not just by monitoring gauges, but by listening to whether her sound makes the right music. If something needs tweaking, he's got the goods.
"Restoring an old Volkswagen, you need a lot of specialty tools," he says. "This engine is the same. When we bought the boat, a pile of these goofy wrenches with crazy shapes came with it. So, I put them all in a wooden box."
"It produces only 100 hp, which is good for 6.5 knots. That's placid by today's standards, but this engine has been around for 91 years."
Another go-to tool Capt. Smith employs in the engine room is, as strange as it sounds, the king of diamonds.
"When the engine runs, we want all cylinders to warm up evenly, which I can check on a pyrometer gauge," he says. "If one needs help, I use a playing card as a shim to increase fuel flow."
And that's just what an oiler might have done 91 years ago.
This article originally appeared in the February 2020 issue.
The fall boat shows are right around the corner. Here's a sneak peek at the new models you'll be able to see there.
Ranger Tugs Launches R-41
The new flagship from Ranger Tugs is a perfect complement to its line of workboat-inspired power cruisers.
Able Artisan
Ed Louchard makes knives, sheaves, blocks and more from scratch, without digital apps or algorithms.
After racking up 50,000 miles in 11 years of sailing around the world, a cruising family masters the return to terra firma.
A Classic Cutter Christened Vito Dumas
Named after a famous solo sailor from Argentina, this 1933 cutter still dazzles and racks up the cruising miles.
A unique sail loft in the Pacific Northwest serves a diverse group of clients while also teaching the craft of sail making
From Passion to Profession
These millennials restored a wooden catboat replica to join Port Townsend's daysailing charter scene
Green beneath the skin- Baby Boomers Part 2