Another sequence

This representation looks utterly useless, but amusing anyway. You can easily see some patterns; there's a reason for them. (I have to do something when walking laps--mulling over crazy stuff works.) (And yes, you can represent all the integers this way.)

0
1
110
111
100
101
11010
11011
11000
11001
11110
  ....

hint below

Another "why not"

The North American Indian tribes, with the possible exception of Calusa Indians of southwestern Florida, didn't use sails on their boats. Which seems a little odd; there are plenty of lakes which would be easier to get around on if you had a sail you could unfurl when the wind was right. The Egyptians used them to go up the Nile, and I presume sails would be equally useful going up the Mississippi or the Missouri. (You'd have to learn tacking, but that shouldn't take too long.) Maybe Superior isn't the best place to learn about sailing, but there are other lakes.

But the most famous Indian water vehicle (hardly the only one, though) was the birchbark canoe, which while nice and light for portaging isn't ideal for hooking a mast on. That would require a heavier frame, making the result a lake-only vehicle.

My Better Half pointed out that the Indian fishing methods were shallow water technology, and so there'd be no great need to go out far and deep, where sails would be most helpful. While they made plenty of fishing nets, I don't find any reference to long and deep nets for deep water fishing. If the populations were low enough that shallow water fishing was adequate to provide the supply (but Cahokia or Aztalan?), then the additional effort wouldn't have been worth it. So why bother with sails.

We stalled there. Maybe somebody has more information?

Karzai and Kremlinology

When I heard the report that Karzai had claimed that the US was in league with the Taliban to try to stay longer, the first thing I thought was "I wonder how that fits into his domestic politics?" I should have wondered if the reporters got the story right. I suppose, given the US reaction, that they did. For a change

I know very little of internal Afghan politics, but if I assume that Karzai isn't just running off at the mouth with random truth and nonsense, then this has something to do with restive political allies or opponents he is trying to out-maneuver.

The exercise at hand is how to figure out what's going on without knowing who or what are the powers at play--sort of like the old Kremlinologists trying to figure out the balance of power from the lineup on the reviewing stand at the May Day Parade.

It isn't exactly a surprise that a lot of Afghans would like the US gone, so accusing us of wanting to stay makes Karzai look like he's standing up against Goliath on behalf of the little guys; that should play well. But there are still quite a few Afghans who benefit from having the US and NGO's around--because we're doing good or because they're on the gravy train. Maybe they take the benefits for granted and also support having the US go, but more likely they're on the outs--unpopular with the rest of the Afghans--and Karzai is posturing against them.

The other accusation--that we're in league with the Taliban--suggests that maybe we've been making some concessions/promises to the Taliban that aren't very popular with the rest of the place.

Or I could be all wet: maybe Karzai's middle name is Biden.