But I did find data on the location, length and orientation of the fissure in this news article on ruv.is (Icelandic), and that location seems to fit well with an infra-red satellite photo on the Institute of Earth Sciences website. This location and orientation also seems to match the helicopter photos taken this evening — it does seem like the pictures are not taken under as large an angle of incidence as the helicopter’s height would imply, but I suppose that’s hard to eyeball. So this location is probably a fair guess.

I put together the following in Google Earth:

• this estimated position of the fissure (guessing a length of 750m lengd, in the middle of the 0.5-1km range given on ruv.is).
• the locations of Baldvinsskáli (mountain hut) and Básar (end of the hiking trail) based on Google Earth map imagery
• two GPS trails (trail 1, trail 2) posted by travelers on Wikiloc
• the coordinates of the helicopter TF-SIF when the three photos on the Coast Guard website were taken this evening

The fissure appears to lie right across the Fimmvörðuháls hiking trail, on the Brattafönn (Steep Snow) slope.

Here is a KMZ file for Google Earth with this data, and below is an overview photo of the data, and a close-up showing the fissure crossing the hiking trail.

The images indicate the copyright held by Google and others on map imagery.

Enjoy, and please let me know if some of this can be corrected/improved.

“The measures you mention [by UK and Dutch authorities, to force Iceland's hand] were taken after your president refused to pay.”

That is simply incorrect: the president did not “refuse to pay”, he refused to ratify more onerous payment terms — and he did so last Monday Tuesday, whereas the measures mentioned took place over the previous months.

“In case you havent heard the UK is in hundreds of bilions of pounds in debt, we need the money as much as you do.”

Yes, the UK has problems as well. But the liability per person is on the order of £50 to the UK and £10,000 to Iceland; a nuisance to one and ruinous to the other. Such a difference in scale might normally be irrelevant, but when a nation’s economic survival is at stake, it is entirely relevant.

And still Iceland did agree to foot this gargantuan bill. That’s the deal the president ratified last September. What the Icelandic parliament had added to the deal were reasonable provisos to safeguard against complete economic ruin. Those safeguards were rejected by the UK and the Netherlands (even though Iceland’s ruin would clearly be against their interests as well), and the Icelandic government’s surrender to that hardline stance is what the president refused to ratify this week.

“The measures taken by Brown are not overstated, they are completely natural in response to getting back our loan.”

Here “getting back our loan” is inaccurate: Iceland never saw that money. The UK and Dutch authorities unilaterally paid it out directly to Icesave depositors, nationalizing their loss because Iceland’s depositors’ guarantee fund sadly was not good for it.

That fund operated in full compliance with the same (now seen to be flawed) framework and funding scheme as corresponding funds in the EU, and like them had no state guarantee. The UK and Dutch governments demanded, after the fact, that it be retrofitted with such a state guarantee. They made no mention of such requirements while their regulatory authorities (and Iceland’s) cheerily tolerated this accumulation of de facto uninsured deposits. If they had, the accumulation would certainly have been stopped and the fiasco averted, as Iceland would clearly never have taken on such a guarantee, let alone borrowed absurd amounts from other countries to fund it.

Thus the blame for this royal mess lies (in addition to the failed private bank) with regulatory authorities and frameworks on all sides. Iceland has already agreed to shoulder its part of the cost, a per-capita burden wildly disproportionate to its share of the blame (whose clarification in a neutral court was denied Iceland, presumably to avoid a blow to global confidence in deposit guarantee schemes. Should Iceland’s 160,000 taxpayers alone pay the price for that?). But the UK and Dutch governments demand the pound of flesh as well.

“If you want to blame someone, then for petes sake blame your own government”

Done. It fell in January a year ago. That doesn’t resolve the dispute though.

“This is natioanlistic pride…thats all”

Nope. In the current predicament Iceland is swallowing plenty of that. I think gvalg’s [a previous commenter's] use of the word “humiliated” was distracting: although humiliation does come with being flogged raw, it is the flogging that’s the problem.

While the UK and Dutch leadership may find it politically expedient to present all this as a matter of nationalistic pride and belligerence (a common enemy is useful, particularly when elections are near), Iceland is only trying to hold on to a minimal assurance of economic survival. Is that really so arrogant? I urge you to reconsider your position.

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

— Roosevelt on the Great Depression, first inaugural address, March 4, 1933

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…

— Churchill on World War II, speech in the House of Commons, June 4, 1940

If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down.

— George W. Bush on the economy, according to NYT, Sep 25, 2008

(It’s Jeff Matthews’ juxtaposition, I just spiffed up the references.)

(And okay, FDR and Churchill were making speeches and Bush was not. Still.)

A random unrelated image

Respect for one’s opponent is a virtue most of us will acknowledge, but not all of us practice.

Clive Crook, in his column in the Financial Times, feels that the latter failing particularly afflicts Democrat-leaning commentators (or “liberals” as they are respectfully referred to in fair and balanced U.S. media).

Whatever the truth or falsity of that, I am using his article as a case study in rhetorical tactics. I have no credentials toward such a study; these are the casual observations of a layman.

So, here’s how to write an article designed to sway public opinion against an opponent. In the quotations, the bold-face emphasis is my doing (and the bald-faced original is Crook’s, of course).

—

First, project some appreciation of the opponent’s scant virtues, in order to boost the credibility of the attacks that are to follow:

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable.

Then levy a related blanket accusation against the opponent’s mindset that is sufficiently subjective to (a) stick easily without clear proof, and (b) lend itself poorly to clear disproof:

Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Note an important feature of this accusation: it is closely tied with the initial praise, so as to neutralize it.

Next, develop that accusation further, taking care to appeal to the innate human frailties of resentment and defensiveness about suggested inferiority:

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

Feel free to lay it on thick here, whipping up the reader’s ire. It will not be directed at you.

Bring up the familiar “liberal media bias”, assuring the audience that said media also look down on them:

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Play the elitism theme some more, rub it in:

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

Portray the opponent’s supporters with reckless exaggeration (go wild and cartoonlike here, nobody is going to demand any verisimilitude):

[Sarah Palin] represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

Allude to misogyny if at all possible. Ideally do so in an unverifiable and undisprovable way:

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible.

Mine the most damning reactions among the opponent’s public supporters — even if you have to go to the edgy comedians, that works just fine — and depict them as being typical:

The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over.

Then deftly project this worst sneering you can find, onto the rest of his supporters, and by implication, your opponent himself. This is a combination of “they’re all the same” with a classic “let them deny it” manoeuvre:

I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.

But here you have left yourself open to a very valid retort: Maher’s scorn was obviously no less targeted at the VP candidate’s complete and utter lack of experience in foreign affairs and defense, than at her refreshingly non-septuagenarian appearance. To parry that, preemptively deflect the point by half-conceding it — and immediately deliver an elitism riposte:

This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust.

Do not get carried away with concessions, though — for example, certainly do not concede that the opposing side’s brisk reactions to Palin might have had to do with to-be-expected Democrat concerns such as the VP candidate supporting creationism in schools; being a hardliner on abortion; displaying an interest in banning books; and referring to the Iraq war as hopefully “a task that is from God”. Carefully portray all opposition as mere sexism and class snobbery.

There is still some risk that your target audience is not sufficiently aware of the disdain you claim they are constantly shown. So remind them again:

Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain.

Sneak in a not-so-subtle suggestion as to what they should do about it, but do not let it sound as if you want to encourage them to do that — you are just casually making a general observation:

Every four years, many take their revenge.

—

But now, ease up a little. As in the beginning, enhance your credibility as a fair and balanced commentator by ending your article with a charm offensive. First, praise the opponent a bit. Do not make it phony. If possible, say something you might mean:

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling.

Still, jab a little, but make sure to sound very nice about it:

Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances…

To further deflect accusations of bias, imply that you genuinely wish the opposing side would overcome the weaknesses you have described:

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain…

Still, lace that with another smidgeon of the air-of-superiority poison:

… the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve.

As a final coup de grâce, blithely slap your opponents with the commie AND the terrorist labels in one go. That’s simple. Just portray them as being against … wait for it …

They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts.

Yes, go ahead, use the “They Hate Our Freedom” line.

Now that is rhetoric.

—

Of course, throughout this process of decrying the disrespect of the opposing side, leave unspoken your implicit suggestion that your own side’s talking heads represent — by contrast — the very epitome of respectful discourse. They certainly haven’t been outed for equally contemptuous commentary, along with a generous helping of double standards. They are no liberals, after all.

—

Note: I took this article as an example because (a) I got the idea reading this article, and (b) I’m not too fond of the McCain-Palin ticket. (Could you tell?) I don’t doubt that a similar set of tactics pervades Democrat-leaning text — just like the article author presumably doesn’t doubt that disrespect and contempt are shown on his side as well. Excuse us both for exercising our bias just a tad.

Fugato.net wishes its tireless, deluged readers a happy new year with thanks for everything, online and off, in the years gone by.

Vífill Atlason (16) made the news last weekend for prank-calling a supposedly top-secret number at the White House, pretending to be the Icelandic president, and booking a phone appointment with President Bush.

Ha ha, but the US news outlets missed the good part: the followup. Two TV stations ran interviews with Vífill. He showed up for one, and had a very-different-looking friend do the other, pretending to be him.

The duped station made it funnier still by threatening to sue both Vífill and the other TV station (which seems also to have been pranked, in that Vífill had promised to appear only on that station that day. Technically, of course, he kept his promise.) The reporter tendered his resignation, which his boss did not accept.

The same station has a show called Tekinn (“Taken” or “Duped”), running pranks on people with hidden cameras.

Vífill may in all seriousness be denied entrance to the US in the future for this (and possibly shackled and denied food and drink for 14 hours), the Dept. of Homeland Security being the celebrated Orwellian juggernaut of common sense and discretion that it is.

But he’ll have no trouble getting into Icelandic showbiz. (Except perhaps on Stöð 2.)

Laekjargata 4
200 Kopavogur
Norway

Pretty good work by the postal system! And as for Reuters, the dependable, accurate information source, well …

I’m often asked the question, “Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?” I give the standard arguments — there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren’t extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it. And then I’m asked, “Yeah, but what do you really think?” I say, “I just told you what I really think.” “Yeah, but what’s your gut feeling?” But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it’s okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.

— Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism, in The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 12, Fall 1987

„Process applications faster and store more data with 256MB internal ROM …“

Note to self: do not buy scientific instruments from websites that smack of the previous millennium.

Many people lose sleep over the idea that (great) wealth is increasingly unevenly distributed, that fewer people have amassed a larger share of the pie than ever before. This conviction seems to arise from observing the very richest and wrinkling one’s nose and scoffing and being indignant.

(Is anyone ever dignant?)

The New York Times today published a summary of the 30 richest Americans of all time, measuring their riches in today’s dollars using the relative share of GDP.

Two of them are alive today, Bill Gates (ranking fifth) and Warren Buffett. Sam Walton founder of WalMart died in 1992, all the others were dead by 1950.

The four richest were born in 1750, 1763, 1794, and 1839.

There’s more to it, of course, but in any case this hardly supports the notion that wealth is more unevenly distributed extreme wealth is accrued by fewer people now than it used to be.

Incidentally, these moguls have one notable thing in common: they all have a Y chromosome. It seems worth investigating the role of this genetic trait in the accumulation of wealth.

Oud master Naseer Shamma (نصير شمة) here plays part of his composition al’Amiriyah, which tells the story of the bombing of public shelter nr. 25 in the Amiriyah district of Baghdad in 1991. Hundreds of civilians were killed (in the range 200-300 according to Human Rights Watch).

In the beginning there is a melancholy quiet, but then the havoc starts, with audible sirens, falling bombs and chaos. All in eleven strings.

Oud is العود in Arabic (al-ʿūd, literally “the wood”), a word believed to come from Persian, rud. The same word probably found its way into European languages as the name of the lute, when pious Europeans had a certain errand to run in the Near East and encountered this fine instrument.