if you were president
$Zero
what would you do?
-$Zero...
boots
>if you were president
>
>what would you do?
1. Start shopping for a job with a lower ratio of blame to pay.
2. see (1) above.
--
Subtlety written subtly can be subtly edited away.
$Zero
> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >if you were president
>
> >what would you do?
>
> 1. Start shopping for a job with a lower ratio of blame to pay.
like what?
-$Zero...
Dead Cook (the other one)
"$Zero" <ze...@whooooooosh.com> wrote in message
news:1178123072.3...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> what would you do?
I'd award you the Presidential Medal of Fuckwit.
Josh Hill
>if you were president
>
>what would you do?
Fire Cheney and then resign.
--
Josh
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it’s going to happen, and
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it’s, it’s not relevant. So, why should I waste my
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
$Zero
> On 2 May 2007 09:24:32 -0700, $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>
> >if you were president
>
> >what would you do?
>
> Fire Cheney and then resign.
i'm assuming that that's what you would do if you were Bush.
but assume that *you* were president, with your own choice for VP,
what would *you* do?
side thought:
*can* the president fire the VP like a cabinet member?
that would be so cool.
seems like the president *can* fire the VP.
but they usually get them to resign, don't they?
-$Zero...
$Zero
<knockknockknocki...@heavensdoor.org> wrote:
> "$Zero" <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote in message
>
> > what would you do?
>
> I'd award you the Presidential Medal of Fuckwit.
that's about all you're qualified to do innit.
let me guess, you'd hire Bush to make the rest of your decisions for
you.
-$Zero...
Josh Hill
They can't really fire them. But the way things work today, I imagine
they could force a voluntary resignation. (Wasn't true back when pres
and vice pres were sometimes from different parties.)
But -- if I were President? Where do I begin?
Let's see --
- Stop global warming dead in its tracks
- Bring the troops home from Iraq
- Start the wet dream of a peace offer that the Iranians made two
years ago and the unspeakably stupid Bush hard liners have been
blocking
- Offer the Arabs and Israelis a fair and reasonable peace agreement
involving dual statehood and a return to '67 borders with
modifications based on population patterns, with the proviso that the
world can no longer afford this shit and any side that doesn't go
along will be walled off by the international community
- Eliminate the deficit by rolling back the tax cuts for the rich and
reducing corporate welfare and agribusiness subsidies
- Extend Medicare to everyone
- Repair our relations with our allies and the rest of the world
- Get serious about Osama Bin Laden
- Declare a new war on poverty that features the offer of a job of
last resort to anyone who can work and a promise that no American who
works to the best of his ability will be below the poverty line
- Start a serious global campaign to halt environmental degradation,
stem excess population growth, and reduce poverty in the third world
- Establish serious Federal standards for education and require that
all children be tested and that all parents and children be told if
they're meeting those standards; require that any school have adequate
disciplinary procedures before it receives state aid; eliminate
bilingual education (but not English as a second language program);
require that all schools receiving Federal aid abolish tenure and
other job security provisions, require that states fund schools on the
basis of need
- Get serious about illegal immigration while at the same time
offering amnesty and providing more opportunities for legal
immigration
- Help localities with a high burden of poverty pay their bills to
allow the economic system to function optimally
- Require that countries trading with the United States not manipulate
exchange rates, steal intellectual property, or ignore worker safety
and the environment, or engage in subsidies and other unfair trading
practices or face punitive tariffs; end tax provisions that encourage
companies to move factories overseas
- Make tobacco illegal, but allow companies to offer nicotine in safe
delivery packages of their devising
- Propose the legalization of soft drugs and create a federal program
to distribute hard drugs to registered addicts; make treatment and
long-term probation mandatory for those addicted to hard drugs
- Require that all people with serious mental illness receive
outpatient care and supervised housing, and that those who do not
respond be hospitalized
- Fool around with sexy interns
Off the top of my head . . .
Towse
ITYMTS, "if I were President and had a fairy godmother and a magic wand
and didn't have to deal with reality, I would ..."
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
If I were president, you can be sure one of my first priorities would
be ordering up that magic wand.
But, seriously, while some of these "proposals" would be impractical
due to political opposition or practical difficulties (and one can't
always know which ones, since it depends on the political climate),
other are IMO not. For example, a majority of Americans and
legislators favor withdrawal from Iraq.
Our sights have been lowered by years of do-nothing government, of an
irrational loathing of government; we've forgotten the New Deal, the
Manhattan Project, Project Apollo. And, conversely, there's a backlog
of long-overdue measures, measures that everyone senses the need for.
Change seems to occur in cycles, and it appears that we're entering a
liberal phase.
boots
>On May 2, 12:46?pm, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>
>> >if you were president
>>
>> >what would you do?
>>
>> 1. tart shopping for a job with a lower ratio of blame to pay.
>
>like what?
>
>-$Zero...
Cooking fries at the local burger joint for starters.
No kidding, the President of the US gets paid jack shit compared to
the CEO of any significant corporation, and no matter what goes wrong
anyplace in the world it's his fault. Worst job on the planet.
Elect me as benevolent dictator and I'll make a few bygawd changes.
boots
>- Fool around with sexy interns
Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
skanky ones. Dunno why.
Kurt Ullman
boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >- Fool around with sexy interns
>
> Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
> skanky ones. Dunno why.
The sexy ones know they can do better?
boots
Maybe that's the whole of it. Like I said, I dunno. I do figure
anybody stupid enough to take the job of President is likely to have
shitty taste too, but I don't wanna jump to no unfounted concloozyuns.
$Zero
> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >On May 2, 12:46?pm, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>
> >> >if you were president
>
> >> >what would you do?
>
> >> 1. Start shopping for a job with a lower ratio of blame to pay.
>
> >like what?
>
> Cooking fries at the local burger joint for starters.
and you think that such a job has a lower ratio of blame somehow?
nope.
just a lower level of responsibilities to fuck up.
> No kidding, the President of the US gets paid jack shit compared to
> the CEO of any significant corporation,
not when you factor in the benefit package, both tangible and
intangible.
> and no matter what goes wrong
> anyplace in the world it's his fault.
hogwash.
only the things that are the president's fault are the president's
fault.
> Worst job on the planet.
every job is exactly what the person doing it makes it.
> Elect me as benevolent dictator and I'll make a few bygawd changes.
like what?
-$Zero...
$Zero
> Josh Hill wrote:
that's exactly what i was thinking when i read the first item on his
agenda.
-$Zero...
Josh Hill
>On May 2, 10:44?pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>> > - Stop global warming dead in its tracks
>>
>> ITYMTS, "if I were President and had a fairy godmother and a magic wand
>> and didn't have to deal with reality, I would ..."
>
>that's exactly what i was thinking when i read the first item on his
>agenda.
Which, as it happens, is /precisely/ why I put it there. Because I've
done a fair amount of research on the technical and economic
difficulty of doing that since I was here last, and, to my utter
astonishment, /it's completely feasible./ The one thing that's
standing in our way -- at least as far as our nation is concerned --
is the government's perverse refusal to take action.
That's is the problem with the Bush Administration: it's not possible
for a normal human being to understand the level of their
incompetence. We saw it in action in Katrina, but still, most people
can't believe that if something were this easily doable we wouldn't
have done it. So people think ending greenhouse admissions would be
hard or impossible or economically damaging. And that's tragic,
/because we're losing time, and in this particular battle, time
represents money and irreversible damage./
And I wanted an excuse to say that. Thanks.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>- Fool around with sexy interns
>
>Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
>skanky ones. Dunno why.
You'n me both.
Josh Hill
Bad Josh say: Hey, Marilyn Monroe warn't so bad
Good Josh say: Maybe Clinton saw something in Monica that didn't have
to do with boobs and a pretty do
Towse
> On 3 May 2007 09:52:00 -0700, $Zero <ze...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 2, 10:44?pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>> - Stop global warming dead in its tracks
>>> ITYMTS, "if I were President and had a fairy godmother and a magic wand
>>> and didn't have to deal with reality, I would ..."
>> that's exactly what i was thinking when i read the first item on his
>> agenda.
>
> Which, as it happens, is /precisely/ why I put it there. Because I've
> done a fair amount of research on the technical and economic
> difficulty of doing that since I was here last, and, to my utter
> astonishment, /it's completely feasible./ The one thing that's
> standing in our way -- at least as far as our nation is concerned --
> is the government's perverse refusal to take action.
>
> That's is the problem with the Bush Administration: it's not possible
> for a normal human being to understand the level of their
> incompetence. We saw it in action in Katrina, but still, most people
> can't believe that if something were this easily doable we wouldn't
> have done it. So people think ending greenhouse admissions would be
> hard or impossible or economically damaging. And that's tragic,
> /because we're losing time, and in this particular battle, time
> represents money and irreversible damage./
>
> And I wanted an excuse to say that. Thanks.
The USA does not rule the world, Josh. All by his lonesome (even if he
drags the entire USAn population along with him) the POTUS can not "stop
global warming dead in its tracks."
Fairy godmother. Magic wand. Reality.
Kurt Ullman
Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> incompetence. We saw it in action in Katrina, but still, most people
> can't believe that if something were this easily doable we wouldn't
> have done it.
The main problem with Katrina turned out to be that the locals
followed their disaster plans to the letter. But nobody ever thought to
think about what might happen if their assumptions about the Dome being
just used overnight weren't true. The other problems since then have
also been largely related to infighting and incompetence in NOLA and the
state level with some idiocy from FEMA thrown in for fun.
Kurt Ullman
Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:27:52 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> >Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <f2ij33ph82kcij3fj...@4ax.com>,
> >> boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >- Fool around with sexy interns
> >>>
> >>> Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
> >>> skanky ones. Dunno why.
> >>
> >> The sexy ones know they can do better?
> >
> >Maybe that's the whole of it. Like I said, I dunno. I do figure
> >anybody stupid enough to take the job of President is likely to have
> >shitty taste too, but I don't wanna jump to no unfounted concloozyuns.
>
> Bad Josh say: Hey, Marilyn Monroe warn't so bad
>
> Good Josh say: Maybe Clinton saw something in Monica that didn't have
> to do with boobs and a pretty do
Well he was from the South. "Monica, you got a purty mouth".
Josh Hill
No, it doesn't. But the rest of the industrialized world will gladly
join us if we take the lead, because it will be to their advantage to
do so; Europe's main concern now is that even the minimal reductions
mandated by Kyoto will put them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis
the United States. And the third world will do what the industrialized
world tells it to, if we're smart enough to offer them the minimal
resources that they need to do their part and tough enough to agree on
trade sanctions if they don't. And I do mean minimal: the carbon
trading credit system already in effect in Europe allows companies to
save money by reducing carbon emissions in poor countries, since it's
typically cheaper to install carbon mitigation measures in third-world
countries than in our own, and credits for carbon sinks would allow
them to preserve their remaining forests (since the burning of the
tropical forests is a major contributor to global warming).
No, it gets back to what I said: the problem here is our government's
lack of will and vision.
Ejucaided Redneck
> But the rest of the industrialized world will gladly
> join us if we take the lead,
China won't.
And they're a major source of pollution contributing to global warming.
> Europe's main concern now is that even the minimal reductions
> mandated by Kyoto will put them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis
> the United States.
Far as this issue goes, China's a lot more important than Europe.
> And the third world will do what the industrialized
> world tells it to
Can you say "Chavez?"
--
The illiteracy level of our children
are appalling.
-- Shrub, Jan 04
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
Herald-Leader Column: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14945607.htm
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Josh Hill
wrote:
I suspect that not even Raskolnikov's cart driver would want to beat
this dead horse at this point. But, to ignore my own advice, I don't
see how one can excuse the Bush Administration's role here. It's not
that the locals weren't outgunned -- they were -- but rather that
local incompetence and lack of preparedness for a disaster of Federal
magnitude doesn't let the Administration off the hook for what has to
be the most extraordinary display of government incompetence I've ever
seen.
That incompetence began long before Katrina hit, with the
Administration's decision to drop planned funding for levee
improvements and to appoint unqualified cronies to FEMA rather than
capable managers as Clinton had done. It continued with the
Administration's failure to preposition adequate resources, with
FEMA's extraordinary bureaucratic blockade of proffered assistance,
with the failure of FEMA and Bush himself to even /notice/ the plight
of the victims when the entire world had been watching them all day on
television. With Bush's failure to Federalize the National Guard. With
Bush's failure to send in troops. With Bush's failure to phone the
Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
I've never seen anything like it. It was as if the Federal response
had been written by Microsoft.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <85ek33l5p5r6kdq8q...@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:27:52 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>> >Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <f2ij33ph82kcij3fj...@4ax.com>,
>> >> boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >- Fool around with sexy interns
>> >>>
>> >>> Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
>> >>> skanky ones. Dunno why.
>> >>
>> >> The sexy ones know they can do better?
>> >
>> >Maybe that's the whole of it. Like I said, I dunno. I do figure
>> >anybody stupid enough to take the job of President is likely to have
>> >shitty taste too, but I don't wanna jump to no unfounted concloozyuns.
>>
>> Bad Josh say: Hey, Marilyn Monroe warn't so bad
>>
>> Good Josh say: Maybe Clinton saw something in Monica that didn't have
>> to do with boobs and a pretty do
>
> Well he was from the South. "Monica, you got a purty mouth".
And Arkansas: "Chelsea, you got a purty mouth."
Kurt Ullman
Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> seen.
>
> That incompetence began long before Katrina hit, with the
> Administration's decision to drop planned funding for levee
> improvements and to appoint unqualified cronies to FEMA rather than
> capable managers as Clinton had done.
Which administration? Eisenhower? JFK? LBJ? Carter? Pretty much no
administration had done anything of consequence with the levees. Even
when someone tried to, reports from Carter through GWB have shown that
the money was required to be given to the locals to spend (each segment
has its own local "authority" which siphons a lot off according to
multiple GAO audits including one last year.
It continued with the
> Administration's failure to preposition adequate resources, with
> FEMA's extraordinary bureaucratic blockade of proffered assistance,
You mean this in place by 11:00p, the day BEFORE it hit?
*FEMA deployed 39 Disaster Medical Assistance Teams from all across
the U.S. to staging areas in Alabama, Tennessee,
Texas, and Louisiana and is now moving them into impacted areas.
*Eighteen Urban Search and Rescue task forces and two Incident Support
Teams have been deployed and prepositioned
in Shreveport, La., and Jackson, Miss., including teams from Florida,
Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia. An additional eight swift water rescue teams have
been
deployed.
*FEMA is moving supplies and equipment into the hardest hit areas as
quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals,
medical supplies, generators, tents, and tarps. There are currently
over 1,700 trucks which have been mobilized to move
these supplies into position.
> with the failure of FEMA and Bush himself to even /notice/ the plight
> of the victims when the entire world had been watching them all day on
> television. With Bush's failure to Federalize the National Guard.
YOu gonna have to be a little more specific.
BTW: They can't federalize the NG under these instances. Under the U.S.
Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the
governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the
president.
A loophole was just changed this January, over the dead bodies of the
National Governor's Association.
For more information on this (including the High Umbrage of the
Governors) might I suggest:
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453
With
> Bush's failure to send in troops. With Bush's failure to phone the
> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
This is somehow Bush's responsiblity.
Thomas Armagost
The minute the Congress called my name (Was the President)
I'd say, "Now who do (Who)
Who do you think you're fooling?"
(Who do you think you're fooling?)
I've got the presidential seal
I'm up on the presidential podium
My mama loves me, she loves me
She gets down on her knees and hugs me
And she loves me like a rock
She rocks me like the rock of ages
And she loves me
She loves me, loves me, loves me, loves me
- Paul Simon
--
http://www.well.com/user/silly
Willie Nelson's tour bus is powered by hemp
Josh Hill
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> But the rest of the industrialized world will gladly
>> join us if we take the lead,
>
>China won't.
>
>And they're a major source of pollution contributing to global warming.
>
>> Europe's main concern now is that even the minimal reductions
>> mandated by Kyoto will put them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis
>> the United States.
>
>Far as this issue goes, China's a lot more important than Europe.
I've seen it suggested that China and India are hiding behind our
coattails on this one. Whether that's true or not, I think they would
come around if the industrial world threatened to impose tariffs: they
know where their bread is buttered.
>> And the third world will do what the industrialized
>> world tells it to
>
>Can you say "Chavez?"
Chavez is part of a small minority, though, and it doesn't really
matter if a few small contributors don't fall into line. I worry more
about the practicalities of ending deforestation, which, IIRC, is
currently responsible for something like 40% of our greenhouse
emissions.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <lflk33lnt19fc5599...@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> seen.
>>
>> That incompetence began long before Katrina hit, with the
>> Administration's decision to drop planned funding for levee
>> improvements and to appoint unqualified cronies to FEMA rather than
>> capable managers as Clinton had done.
>
> Which administration? Eisenhower? JFK? LBJ? Carter? Pretty much no
>administration had done anything of consequence with the levees. Even
>when someone tried to, reports from Carter through GWB have shown that
>the money was required to be given to the locals to spend (each segment
>has its own local "authority" which siphons a lot off according to
>multiple GAO audits including one last year.
Actually, previous administrations funded the entire levee system,
which is one of the greatest public works of all times. The
vulnerability of New Orleans to cat 5 storms was pointed out long
after the Administrations you mentioned, during the Clinton
Administration, IIRC. By the time Katrina hit, FEMA and DHS considered
a hurricane in New Orleans our most serious disaster threat. Congress
moved to shore up the levees, but /Bush took the money out of the
budget./ According to the Corps of Engineers, the storm damage would
have been significantly less had he not done that.
>It continued with the
>> Administration's failure to preposition adequate resources, with
>> FEMA's extraordinary bureaucratic blockade of proffered assistance,
>
> You mean this in place by 11:00p, the day BEFORE it hit?
>
> *FEMA deployed 39 Disaster Medical Assistance Teams from all across
>the U.S. to staging areas in Alabama, Tennessee,
>Texas, and Louisiana and is now moving them into impacted areas.
>
>*Eighteen Urban Search and Rescue task forces and two Incident Support
>Teams have been deployed and prepositioned
>in Shreveport, La., and Jackson, Miss., including teams from Florida,
>Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee,
>Texas, and Virginia. An additional eight swift water rescue teams have
>been
>deployed.
>
>*FEMA is moving supplies and equipment into the hardest hit areas as
>quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals,
>medical supplies, generators, tents, and tarps. There are currently
>over 1,700 trucks which have been mobilized to move
>these supplies into position.
The resources were, in fact, crassly inadequate. As I recall, that was
widely discussed at the time.
>> with the failure of FEMA and Bush himself to even /notice/ the plight
>> of the victims when the entire world had been watching them all day on
>> television. With Bush's failure to Federalize the National Guard.
>
> YOu gonna have to be a little more specific.
About what? The fact that Bush, FEMA, and DHS didn't even know what
was going on? That was also widely reported at the time.
>BTW: They can't federalize the NG under these instances. Under the U.S.
>Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the
>governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the
>president.
> A loophole was just changed this January, over the dead bodies of the
>National Governor's Association.
>For more information on this (including the High Umbrage of the
>Governors) might I suggest:
>http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453
AFAIK, he need only have declared a state of insurrection on the basis
of the rioting and looting.
>With
>> Bush's failure to send in troops. With Bush's failure to phone the
>> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
>
> This is somehow Bush's responsiblity.
He's President of the United States. Of course it was his
responsibility.
boots
You weren't very nice to me earlier in your post, so I think I'll let
you wait and find out after the election along with everybody else;
but do remember to vote for me. <insane_cackle>
boots
boots
>On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:27:52 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <f2ij33ph82kcij3fj...@4ax.com>,
>>> boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >- Fool around with sexy interns
>>>>
>>>> Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
>>>> skanky ones. Dunno why.
>>>
>>> The sexy ones know they can do better?
>>
>>Maybe that's the whole of it. Like I said, I dunno. I do figure
>>anybody stupid enough to take the job of President is likely to have
>>shitty taste too, but I don't wanna jump to no unfounted concloozyuns.
>
>Bad Josh say: Hey, Marilyn Monroe warn't so bad
Good guys die young.
>Good Josh say: Maybe Clinton saw something in Monica that didn't have
>to do with boobs and a pretty do
Yah, like his dick.
boots
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:28:17 GMT, Ejucaided Redneck
> <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >
> >> But the rest of the industrialized world will gladly
> >> join us if we take the lead,
> >
> >China won't.
> >
> >And they're a major source of pollution contributing to global warming.
> >
> >> Europe's main concern now is that even the minimal reductions
> >> mandated by Kyoto will put them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis
> >> the United States.
> >
> >Far as this issue goes, China's a lot more important than Europe.
>
> I've seen it suggested that China and India are hiding behind our
> coattails on this one. Whether that's true or not, I think they would
> come around if the industrial world threatened to impose tariffs: they
> know where their bread is buttered.
The "industrial world" can't afford to antagonize the Chinese with
tariffs.
> >> And the third world will do what the industrialized
> >> world tells it to
> >
> >Can you say "Chavez?"
>
> Chavez is part of a small minority, though, and it doesn't really
> matter if a few small contributors don't fall into line. I worry more
> about the practicalities of ending deforestation, which, IIRC, is
> currently responsible for something like 40% of our greenhouse
> emissions.
There are four or five governments in Latin America currently following
Chavez's lead in flipping the bird at America. Chavez has billions of
dollars to play with, and he's playing them very well.
I think you're wrong about your percentages, but in any case, Brazil
isn't going to stop cutting timber for the Japanese just because we want
them to.
"Industrialized nations" have far less clout than you maintain.
--
Paperless Voting is like a paperless toilet
& is bad hygiene for democracy
-- Comment found on a blog
Kurt Ullman
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> There are four or five governments in Latin America currently following
> Chavez's lead in flipping the bird at America. Chavez has billions of
> dollars to play with, and he's playing them very well.
Rather interesting story about Chavez a couple of days ago. Seems that
he just announces things when they hit his fancy and often doesn't let
anyone else (apparently including himself) in on it ahead of time. So,
that leaves the ministers who actually have to implement his decrees
scrambling around.
Recent example he decided to pull out of the IMF. Turns out he
mentioned this to nobody and so nobody was able to tell him that the
minute he did a few trillion in debt instantly become due. Ooops.
>
> I think you're wrong about your percentages, but in any case, Brazil
> isn't going to stop cutting timber for the Japanese just because we want
> them to.
>
> "Industrialized nations" have far less clout than you maintain.
>
Yep.
Josh Hill
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:28:17 GMT, Ejucaided Redneck
>> <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Josh Hill wrote:
>> >
>> >> But the rest of the industrialized world will gladly
>> >> join us if we take the lead,
>> >
>> >China won't.
>> >
>> >And they're a major source of pollution contributing to global warming.
>> >
>> >> Europe's main concern now is that even the minimal reductions
>> >> mandated by Kyoto will put them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis
>> >> the United States.
>> >
>> >Far as this issue goes, China's a lot more important than Europe.
>>
>> I've seen it suggested that China and India are hiding behind our
>> coattails on this one. Whether that's true or not, I think they would
>> come around if the industrial world threatened to impose tariffs: they
>> know where their bread is buttered.
>
>The "industrial world" can't afford to antagonize the Chinese with
>tariffs.
Why not? There's a certain amount of interdependency, sure, but the
real benefits are flowing China's way, and they're exquisitely aware
of that. Besides, these things always seem to stop short of a trade
war.
What's more, China's objections to the Kyoto framework appear to be
justified: emission credits should be determined on a per capita basis
with credit for national carbon sinks, rather than pegged to a
country's current emission levels. And climate treaties should
probably also take into account the fact that the industrialized
countries are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases already in
the atmosphere. A fair system would, at least from a competitive
perspective, work to China's advantage, since their per capita
emission of greenhouse gases is still significantly lower than that of
the fully industrialized countries, and since their energy-inefficient
infrastructure would attract carbon credit investments.
>> >> And the third world will do what the industrialized
>> >> world tells it to
>> >
>> >Can you say "Chavez?"
>>
>> Chavez is part of a small minority, though, and it doesn't really
>> matter if a few small contributors don't fall into line. I worry more
>> about the practicalities of ending deforestation, which, IIRC, is
>> currently responsible for something like 40% of our greenhouse
>> emissions.
>
>There are four or five governments in Latin America currently following
>Chavez's lead in flipping the bird at America. Chavez has billions of
>dollars to play with, and he's playing them very well.
>
>I think you're wrong about your percentages, but in any case, Brazil
>isn't going to stop cutting timber for the Japanese just because we want
>them to.
>
>"Industrialized nations" have far less clout than you maintain.
That assumes that the Japanese won't be on board, and I think they
would be.
In any case, third world countries have historically agreed to
widely-supported international measures, such as the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and the ban on fluorocarbons. And global
warming is expected to have a disproportionate effect on poor nations:
It seems to me that if we offer some incentives and make it possible
for third world nations to comply, most will come aboard -- certainly
enough of them to allow us to solve the problem at reasonable cost. I
could be wrong, of course. But thanks to the Republicans, we haven't
even tried. If the world's richest nation and the largest emitter of
greenhouse gases won't curb its own emissions, how can we expect the
third world to come aboard?
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it gets back to what I said: the problem here is our government's
>>lack of will and vision.
>
>I have will and vision, elect me benevolent dicator!
Benevolent? No way. I want a real creep.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:27:52 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <f2ij33ph82kcij3fj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >- Fool around with sexy interns
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
>>>>> skanky ones. Dunno why.
>>>>
>>>> The sexy ones know they can do better?
>>>
>>>Maybe that's the whole of it. Like I said, I dunno. I do figure
>>>anybody stupid enough to take the job of President is likely to have
>>>shitty taste too, but I don't wanna jump to no unfounted concloozyuns.
>>
>>Bad Josh say: Hey, Marilyn Monroe warn't so bad
>
>Good guys die young.
You've noticed that too . . .
Well, here's to living to be 100.
>>Good Josh say: Maybe Clinton saw something in Monica that didn't have
>>to do with boobs and a pretty do
>
>Yah, like his dick.
How could he see it if it was in her?
$Zero
translation: you'll be running as the Republican nominee but you
haven't yet decided just how to package it this round.
-$Zero...
$Zero
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:34:55 GMT, Ejucaided Redneck
> >The "industrial world" can't afford to antagonize the Chinese with
> >tariffs.
>
> Why not? There's a certain amount of interdependency, sure, but the
> real benefits are flowing China's way, and they're exquisitely aware
> of that. Besides, these things always seem to stop short of a trade
> war.
>
> What's more, China's objections to the Kyoto framework appear to be
> justified: emission credits should be determined on a per capita basis
> with credit for national carbon sinks, rather than pegged to a
> country's current emission levels. And climate treaties should
> probably also take into account the fact that the industrialized
> countries are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases already in
> the atmosphere. A fair system would, at least from a competitive
> perspective, work to China's advantage, since their per capita
> emission of greenhouse gases is still significantly lower than that of
> the fully industrialized countries, and since their energy-inefficient
> infrastructure would attract carbon credit investments.
if i were president, i'd focus a lot of the nation's time and energy
on developing affordable and practical solar powered technology.
then i'd have the Chinese mass produce it and make the solar power
modules available cheaply to everyone.
for what?
to gear up all of the world's populations to be able to better focus
all of their time and energies on becoming master musicians and
doctors and architects and farmers and chefs and space explorers and
whatnot instead of dumbfuck warriors.
-$Zero...
Josh Hill
>if i were president, i'd focus a lot of the nation's time and energy
>on developing affordable and practical solar powered technology.
>
>then i'd have the Chinese mass produce it and make the solar power
>modules available cheaply to everyone.
>
>for what?
>
>to gear up all of the world's populations to be able to better focus
>all of their time and energies on becoming master musicians and
>doctors and architects and farmers and chefs and space explorers and
>whatnot instead of dumbfuck warriors.
As far as I know, affordable solar is still a big technological
question mark. Might be possible in the short term, might not be.
Fusion may or may not prove affordable, and it's a few years away,
because governments haven't invested enough money in it.
Wind is here, but we don't have an economical way to solve the
intermittency problem, so it's a supplemental source at best -- up to
20% of the power grid, plus hydrogen from wind to power vehicles if
they can bring costs down a bit.
Fission works, and we'll probably have to use lots of it in the short
term, despite the obvious drawbacks.
Fossil fuels with carbon sequestration -- significant potential, but
limited in scale -- how limited, I haven't been able to find out.
Ethanal from sugar cane, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel -- best
short-term solution for transportation, because they require only
minor modifications to production vehicles. Given expected efficiency
improvements could probably just about supply America's needs. Not all
countries are as fortunate.
Idea I love and have never seen mentioned anywhere: reform cellulosic
ethanol (biofuel) into hydrogen /with sequestration./ Why I love it:
with every mile you drove, you would take carbon /out/ of the
atmosphere!
'Course, if we just launched our nuclear missiles at one another, not
only would we save money on upkeep, we'd reduce the world's energy
requirements significantly . . .
boots
Oops, you missed by a mile. I don't do that "party" thingy, I only do
the other one. It would be really gauche for a benevolent dictator to
have alliances with one party y'know, gotta make the rounds on Friday
and Saturday night, don't wanna miss any of the good whorse-durves.
boots
>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 21:28:17 GMT, Ejucaided Redneck
>> <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Josh Hill wrote:
>> >
>> >> But the rest of the industrialized world will gladly
>> >> join us if we take the lead,
>> >
>> >China won't.
>> >
>> >And they're a major source of pollution contributing to global warming.
>> >
>> >> Europe's main concern now is that even the minimal reductions
>> >> mandated by Kyoto will put them at an economic disadvantage vis a vis
>> >> the United States.
>> >
>> >Far as this issue goes, China's a lot more important than Europe.
>>
>> I've seen it suggested that China and India are hiding behind our
>> coattails on this one. Whether that's true or not, I think they would
>> come around if the industrial world threatened to impose tariffs: they
>> know where their bread is buttered.
>
>The "industrial world" can't afford to antagonize the Chinese with
>tariffs.
You remember back when willy-Bill was pres? He was hangin out with
that chinee general dood? Kinda just before China became our "most
favored trading partner"? I think there was some nuclear
intimindation and lack of spine involved with that. Elect me
benevolent dictator and we'll fix it post-haste. I never mind a mess
after all, as long as somebody else will be cleaning it up. Hmmm,
what shall I cook for dinner tonight...
boots
Solar power is some gooood shit. Wind power is purty good some places
too. Lots of wind flowing out of m-w, stick a turbine in front of
your 'puter screen and watch the wot's flow.
boots
>On 4 May 2007 13:23:11 -0700, $Zero <ze...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>
>>if i were president, i'd focus a lot of the nation's time and energy
>>on developing affordable and practical solar powered technology.
>>
>>then i'd have the Chinese mass produce it and make the solar power
>>modules available cheaply to everyone.
>>
>>for what?
>>
>>to gear up all of the world's populations to be able to better focus
>>all of their time and energies on becoming master musicians and
>>doctors and architects and farmers and chefs and space explorers and
>>whatnot instead of dumbfuck warriors.
>
>As far as I know, affordable solar is still a big technological
>question mark.
Depends a lot on what you mean by "affordable" don't it. One of the
big problems is that folks have been trained to use lots more
electricity than is actually needed to get the job done. Plenty of
ways to cut down on what's used. In some ways Nicky Tesla shot us in
the ass by making it easy to transmit 'lectricity long distances, too
bad he ain't around to help fix it. By and large, folks who set up a
solar power system are doing some silly stuff. They try to replace
the power input to a wasteful house instead of doing the job that
needs done. Kind of like converting a gas-hog V8 to run on alcohol
instead of starting out by replacing it with a 4-banger. People are
addicted to wasting power. Power companies like it that way, it's how
they make their money. Gas companies tend to jerk things around to
maximize profit, they raise gas prices and solar companies get a few
bucks to research with, they look like figuring something out, gosh
guess what gas prices go back down and nobody cares anymore. If the
human race wasn't short-sighted and stupid, on the whole, well we'd be
something else wouldn't we, and it'd prolly still be goofy. Gas
prices have been going up here at the start of camping season, driving
the prices on camp trailers and other kinds of RVs down, keeping the
hoi-polloi at home to fix up their raggedy-assed houses because they
can't afford to "See The USA In Your Chevrolet". It's all pretty much
a joke innit, follow da money.
boots
>On Thu, 03 May 2007 22:40:44 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>No, it gets back to what I said: the problem here is our government's
>>>lack of will and vision.
>>
>>I have will and vision, elect me benevolent dicator!
>
>Benevolent? No way. I want a real creep.
What is this shit? Creepiness can't be benevolent? Benevolence can't
be creepy? C'mon, the two just ain't related. Vote for me and I
guarantee the hair on the back of your neck will stand up, is that
creepy enough?
boots
>On Thu, 03 May 2007 22:43:40 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:27:52 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <f2ij33ph82kcij3fj...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >- Fool around with sexy interns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody fools around with sexy interns, they fool around with the
>>>>>> skanky ones. Dunno why.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sexy ones know they can do better?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe that's the whole of it. Like I said, I dunno. I do figure
>>>>anybody stupid enough to take the job of President is likely to have
>>>>shitty taste too, but I don't wanna jump to no unfounted concloozyuns.
>>>
>>>Bad Josh say: Hey, Marilyn Monroe warn't so bad
>>
>>Good guys die young.
>
>You've noticed that too . . .
>
>Well, here's to living to be 100.
Funny thing. Few years back (decades now actually) I got sick up with
life on Planet Earth. Decided to start smoking, earn myself an early
out. I smoke a lot. Hardly had a cold since. I figure because I'd
just as soon check out, I'll be stuck here for fucking ever. Can't
win, ya know?
>>>Good Josh say: Maybe Clinton saw something in Monica that didn't have
>>>to do with boobs and a pretty do
>>
>>Yah, like his dick.
>
>How could he see it if it was in her?
I don't even want to think about when it was and when it wasn't and
how it got from one place to the other, thanks.
Josh Hill
I agree that we waste lost of energy. Unfortunately:
- As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
enough to make up the difference.
- It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
- Solar /heating/ is extremely efficient and cost effective, and makes
much more sense for the typical householder than solar electricity,
the exception being that solar electricity becomes economical when a
new house is far enough off the power grid (nominally one mile) so
that it's cheaper to buy the solar panels and related equipment than
it would be to run a new power line
- I think one has to choose the options that are most likely to be
acceptable to the general public. Some energy conserving measures are
win-win all around, e.g., better insulation and more efficient
vehicles and appliances. But most people don't want to give up their
way of life, and I don't think there's any real reason why they should
have to -- we pretty much know how to do it, and would be doing it if
the White House wasn't owned lock stock and barrel by the oil and gas
industry.
- As things now stand, solar electricity isn't the most efficient
alternative energy source. Wind, in particular, is much more
economical, and we have enough of it to power the entire world several
times over.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2007 22:40:44 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>No, it gets back to what I said: the problem here is our government's
>>>>lack of will and vision.
>>>
>>>I have will and vision, elect me benevolent dicator!
>>
>>Benevolent? No way. I want a real creep.
>
>What is this shit? Creepiness can't be benevolent? Benevolence can't
>be creepy? C'mon, the two just ain't related. Vote for me and I
>guarantee the hair on the back of your neck will stand up, is that
>creepy enough?
http://bp2.blogger.com/_94vWmzABPGg/RjKqLKRGlLI/AAAAAAAAAAU/5QRzqzK9JxI/s1600-h/story.jpg
Josh Hill
Just too many interesting things to do for me to ever want to check
out. My one frustration is that I won't have time to do them all!
boots
Well stop that, right now, or you'll be sent to your room.
>- As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
>than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
>enough to make up the difference.
Really? I guess that depends too. Where I live, it would cost me $X
to have the power company add me to their list of suckers. They want
me to purchase capital equipment for them (transformers & crap) so
that I may have the privilege of paying them monthly whatever they
want to bill me. Fluctuating fuel costs ya know. For less than what
they want me to give them as new-customer-payola, I can set up an
offgrid system that will power my cabin for free on an ongoing basis.
Fuck 'em.
>- It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
>verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
>solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
Ask your source how much energy it makes to build one of those
automobile thingies, woudja?
>- Solar /heating/ is extremely efficient and cost effective, and makes
>much more sense for the typical householder than solar electricity,
>the exception being that solar electricity becomes economical when a
>new house is far enough off the power grid (nominally one mile) so
>that it's cheaper to buy the solar panels and related equipment than
>it would be to run a new power line
The trick phrase in that paragraph is "typical householder". The
typical dude wants to push a button and have it done. Check out how
much energy one of those garbage diposal thingys uses, trash
compactor, garage door opener, yada yada yada. There is an immense
difference between the amount of energy needed to perform the
essential functions (computer at the top, lights, water, heat) versus
the functions one considers necessary when one comes home dead tired
at 7pm, has to be up at 6am to do it again tomorrow, and wants to cram
everything in and get a couple hours sleep.
>- I think one has to choose the options that are most likely to be
>acceptable to the general public.
Fuck the "general public", they're the ones got us into this mess,
it's every man for himself.
> Some energy conserving measures are
>win-win all around, e.g., better insulation and more efficient
>vehicles and appliances. But most people don't want to give up their
>way of life, and I don't think there's any real reason why they should
>have to
Let each choose his preferred method of suffering, ynot.
> -- we pretty much know how to do it, and would be doing it if
>the White House wasn't owned lock stock and barrel by the oil and gas
>industry.
>
>- As things now stand, solar electricity isn't the most efficient
>alternative energy source. Wind, in particular, is much more
>economical, and we have enough of it to power the entire world several
>times over.
Wind and sun are pretty available, but again it depends on location.
Where I live we either have enough sun to give you a 10-minute
sunburn, or a wind you have to lean into. Some places, admittedly not
many, are just pissy-assed mediocre, never really hard sun or wind,
just kind of blah.
The general public chooses the alternatives that are easier+cheaper
from the available list of alternatives. Offgrid is definitely not
easier and if you believe the superstitions it's not cheaper either.
The general public will continue to choose the easiest/cheapest
alternatives, anything else would be insane. Their sanity allows
their manipulation. Sanity is like that innit, it's a fuckin plot.
boots
You must be slow, I got that stuff done decades ago. Priorities,
prolly. Or maybe I'm blessed with an aversion to all the gotchas
those "interesting things" wrap around yer neck. I hope ya get yer
fondest wish, and I wouldn't swap with ya for nuthin.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well stop that, right now, or you'll be sent to your room.
The teenager's dream: stereo, stash, phone, and a stack of Penthouses.
>>- As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
>>than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
>>enough to make up the difference.
>
>Really? I guess that depends too. Where I live, it would cost me $X
>to have the power company add me to their list of suckers. They want
>me to purchase capital equipment for them (transformers & crap) so
>that I may have the privilege of paying them monthly whatever they
>want to bill me. Fluctuating fuel costs ya know. For less than what
>they want me to give them as new-customer-payola, I can set up an
>offgrid system that will power my cabin for free on an ongoing basis.
>Fuck 'em.
As I pointed out somewhere, solar electricity makes economic sense
when the cost of connection to the grid is high enough. Usually,
that's about a mile off grid, but it varies depending on
circumstances.
>>- It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
>>verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
>>solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
>
>Ask your source how much energy it makes to build one of those
>automobile thingies, woudja?
Doesn't matter as much. Why? Because if you have a EROEI (energy
returned on energy invested) of less than one, the power source
becomes an energy sink -- it takes more power than it provides. And
you can't reduce global warming by using power sources that take more
power than they provide. The same thing isn't true of an
energy-consuming device.
>>- Solar /heating/ is extremely efficient and cost effective, and makes
>>much more sense for the typical householder than solar electricity,
>>the exception being that solar electricity becomes economical when a
>>new house is far enough off the power grid (nominally one mile) so
>>that it's cheaper to buy the solar panels and related equipment than
>>it would be to run a new power line
>
>The trick phrase in that paragraph is "typical householder". The
>typical dude wants to push a button and have it done. Check out how
>much energy one of those garbage diposal thingys uses, trash
>compactor, garage door opener, yada yada yada. There is an immense
>difference between the amount of energy needed to perform the
>essential functions (computer at the top, lights, water, heat) versus
>the functions one considers necessary when one comes home dead tired
>at 7pm, has to be up at 6am to do it again tomorrow, and wants to cram
>everything in and get a couple hours sleep.
Home heating and cooling amount to 45% of a typical home's energy
expenditure; hot water, 11%. I don't have a separate figure for
heating (solar cooling is possible but flaky), but I think it's clear
that heating and hot water constitute a major portion of the typical
household's utility bill. Where sunlight is limited, it makes much
more sense from an environmental and economic perspective to use it
efficiently than to use it inefficiently.
>>- I think one has to choose the options that are most likely to be
>>acceptable to the general public.
>
>Fuck the "general public", they're the ones got us into this mess,
>it's every man for himself.
Doesn't really work, though, does it? I mean, it's not like we can
paint a rainbow in the nursery and have Bleak Houses of our own: we
share the planet.
>> Some energy conserving measures are
>>win-win all around, e.g., better insulation and more efficient
>>vehicles and appliances. But most people don't want to give up their
>>way of life, and I don't think there's any real reason why they should
>>have to
>
>Let each choose his preferred method of suffering, ynot.
>
>> -- we pretty much know how to do it, and would be doing it if
>>the White House wasn't owned lock stock and barrel by the oil and gas
>>industry.
>>
>>- As things now stand, solar electricity isn't the most efficient
>>alternative energy source. Wind, in particular, is much more
>>economical, and we have enough of it to power the entire world several
>>times over.
>
>Wind and sun are pretty available, but again it depends on location.
>Where I live we either have enough sun to give you a 10-minute
>sunburn, or a wind you have to lean into. Some places, admittedly not
>many, are just pissy-assed mediocre, never really hard sun or wind,
>just kind of blah.
>
>The general public chooses the alternatives that are easier+cheaper
>from the available list of alternatives. Offgrid is definitely not
>easier and if you believe the superstitions it's not cheaper either.
>
>The general public will continue to choose the easiest/cheapest
>alternatives, anything else would be insane. Their sanity allows
>their manipulation. Sanity is like that innit, it's a fuckin plot.
The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
that energy. People think that they're choosing the most economical
alternative, but they aren't.
Pies de Arcilla
Josh Hill wrote:
> The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
> because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
> that energy.
Well, no. When you include the taxes, retail energy prices far exceed
the actual cost of using energy.
Pies de Arcilla
Josh Hill wrote:
>With Bush's failure to phone the
> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
It is not _reasonable_ to expect the federal government to manage all
the school buses in the country. If you were the president, I think
you would be about as successful as Chavez or Mugabe.
Josh Hill
wrote:
I'll have to ask for a cite on that one, I'm afraid, since everything
I've ever read on the subject says that it's wildly wrong.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
Now that has got to be the stupidest single thing anyone has ever said
here.
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On 6 May 2007 12:30:04 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>> The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
>>> because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
>>> that energy.
>>
>>Well, no. When you include the taxes, retail energy prices far exceed
>>the actual cost of using energy.
>
>I'll have to ask for a cite on that one, I'm afraid, since everything
>I've ever read on the subject says that it's wildly wrong.
Most of those in the home power movement strive for perfection and
consider themselves lucky to reach near parity in cost versus
expense to manufacture. If you're good at scrounging together the
necessary equipment from scrap and building it yourself, you can
improve your odds.
http://www.homepower.com/
--
Ray
roye...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 22:52:51 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <lflk33lnt19fc55996ntunc6t1ev0v5...@4ax.com>,
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> seen.
>
> >> That incompetence began long before Katrina hit, with the
> >> Administration's decision to drop planned funding for levee
> >> improvements and to appoint unqualified cronies to FEMA rather than
> >> capable managers as Clinton had done.
>
> > Which administration? Eisenhower? JFK? LBJ? Carter? Pretty much no
> >administration had done anything of consequence with the levees. Even
> >when someone tried to, reports from Carter through GWB have shown that
> >the money was required to be given to the locals to spend (each segment
> >has its own local "authority" which siphons a lot off according to
> >multiple GAO audits including one last year.
>
> Actually, previous administrations funded the entire levee system,
> which is one of the greatest public works of all times. The
> vulnerability of New Orleans to cat 5 storms was pointed out long
> after the Administrations you mentioned, during the Clinton
> Administration, IIRC. By the time Katrina hit, FEMA and DHS considered
> a hurricane in New Orleans our most serious disaster threat. Congress
> moved to shore up the levees, but /Bush took the money out of the
> budget./ According to the Corps of Engineers, the storm damage would
> have been significantly less had he not done that.
>
>
>
>
>
> >It continued with the
> >> Administration's failure to preposition adequate resources, with
> >> FEMA's extraordinary bureaucratic blockade of proffered assistance,
>
> > You mean this in place by 11:00p, the day BEFORE it hit?
>
> > *FEMA deployed 39 Disaster Medical Assistance Teams from all across
> >the U.S. to staging areas in Alabama, Tennessee,
> >Texas, and Louisiana and is now moving them into impacted areas.
>
> >*Eighteen Urban Search and Rescue task forces and two Incident Support
> >Teams have been deployed and prepositioned
> >in Shreveport, La., and Jackson, Miss., including teams from Florida,
> >Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee,
> >Texas, and Virginia. An additional eight swift water rescue teams have
> >been
> >deployed.
>
> >*FEMA is moving supplies and equipment into the hardest hit areas as
> >quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals,
> >medical supplies, generators, tents, and tarps. There are currently
> >over 1,700 trucks which have been mobilized to move
> >these supplies into position.
>
> The resources were, in fact, crassly inadequate. As I recall, that was
> widely discussed at the time.
>
> >> with the failure of FEMA and Bush himself to even /notice/ the plight
> >> of the victims when the entire world had been watching them all day on
> >> television. With Bush's failure to Federalize the National Guard.
>
> > YOu gonna have to be a little more specific.
>
> About what? The fact that Bush, FEMA, and DHS didn't even know what
> was going on? That was also widely reported at the time.
>
> >BTW: They can't federalize the NG under these instances. Under the U.S.
> >Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the
> >governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the
> >president.
> > A loophole was just changed this January, over the dead bodies of the
> >National Governor's Association.
> >For more information on this (including the High Umbrage of the
> >Governors) might I suggest:
> >http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453
>
> AFAIK, he need only have declared a state of insurrection on the basis
> of the rioting and looting.
>
> >With
> >> Bush's failure to send in troops. With Bush's failure to phone the
> >> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
>
>
> He's President of the United States. Of course it was his
> responsibility.
>
> --
> Josh
>
The Louisiana National Guard and the school systems of NOLA are under
the supervision of State and municipal governments. Those two elected
entities have oversight and first right of response in times of
calamity. Both those governments miserably failed the citizens--who
have re-elected them. But that's the way democrats are: shit on me,
piss on me but promise me the moon and I'll let you sully me again and
again. Whoop! I love to see it.
BTW, George W Bush is President of the United States, not Governor of
Louisiana or Mayor of New Orleans. Even liberals who attended public
school and learned American Civics in 10th grade should know the
difference between those diverse stations of civic responsibility.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
--Bench Press
Josh Hill
I know that site -- looked into it when we decided to build a sun
porch a while back. Which, at the current rate of progress, will
happen sometime in 2057.
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:23:44 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:14:56 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>On 6 May 2007 12:30:04 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>> The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
>>>>> because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
>>>>> that energy.
>>>>
>>>>Well, no. When you include the taxes, retail energy prices far exceed
>>>>the actual cost of using energy.
>>>
>>>I'll have to ask for a cite on that one, I'm afraid, since everything
>>>I've ever read on the subject says that it's wildly wrong.
>>
>>Most of those in the home power movement strive for perfection and
>>consider themselves lucky to reach near parity in cost versus
>>expense to manufacture. If you're good at scrounging together the
>>necessary equipment from scrap and building it yourself, you can
>>improve your odds.
>>http://www.homepower.com/
>
>I know that site -- looked into it when we decided to build a sun
>porch a while back. Which, at the current rate of progress, will
>happen sometime in 2057.
Oh. Is that when the sun is scheduled to come back out there?
--
Ray
Josh Hill
>The Louisiana National Guard and the school systems of NOLA are under
>the supervision of State and municipal governments. Those two elected
>entities have oversight and first right of response in times of
>calamity. Both those governments miserably failed the citizens--who
>have re-elected them. But that's the way democrats are: shit on me,
>piss on me but promise me the moon and I'll let you sully me again and
>again. Whoop! I love to see it.
>
>BTW, George W Bush is President of the United States, not Governor of
>Louisiana or Mayor of New Orleans. Even liberals who attended public
>school and learned American Civics in 10th grade should know the
>difference between those diverse stations of civic responsibility.
I'll having never attended public school, taken a civics class, or
been in the 10th grade.
>I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
IIRC, local voters re-elected Nagin but fired Gov. Whatshername. But
-- who cares? No one except Republicans who are trying desperately to
distract attention from Dubya's elephantine pile of poo, that is.
Certainly, no one complained when Federal troops marched into San
Francisco after the 1906 earthquake. And no one complained about
FEMA's textbook hurricane response under Clinton, a response which was
in marked contrast to the first Bush Administration's infamously
botched response to Hurricane Andrew.
"... I went to Florida a few days after President Bush did to observe
the damage from Hurricane Andrew. I had dealt with a lot of natural
disasters as governor, including floods, droughts, and tornadoes, but
I had never seen anything like this.
"I was surprised to hear complaints from both local officials and
residents about how the Federal Emergency Management Agency was
handling the aftermath of the hurricane.
"Traditionally, the job of FEMA director was given to a political
supporter of the President who wanted some plum position but who had
no experience with emergencies. I made a mental note to avoid that
mistake if I won. Voters don't chose a President based on how he'll
handle disasters, but if they're faced with one themselves, it quickly
becomes the most important issue in their lives." - Bill Clinton
Perhaps the public is less interested in rhetoric about the role of
the Federal Government than in whether a boat shows up to extract them
from the attic.
boots
Most people don't even know what a tankless water heater is, they just
yell when the shower turns cold and piss about the bill.
>>>- I think one has to choose the options that are most likely to be
>>>acceptable to the general public.
>>
>>Fuck the "general public", they're the ones got us into this mess,
>>it's every man for himself.
>
>Doesn't really work, though, does it?
Well yes, I think it does. Though it may not in cities.
> I mean, it's not like we can
>paint a rainbow in the nursery and have Bleak Houses of our own: we
>share the planet.
Since the planet is shared and the other guys will fuck it up, no
point in keeping our own mess down? I don't buy that approach.
Yesterday I was driving (riding actually, Mrs Boots is far too wise to
allow me behind the wheel except in emergencies) through Denver.
Houses as far as the eye can see, much farther, in any direction. So
I turns to her and I says, "At this very moment there are literally
hundreds of thousands of people flushing shit down their toilet, now
where the fuck does it all go?"
I have no choice but to keep it simple, even at that level it's beyond
me.
boots
>On 6 May 2007 12:30:04 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>> The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
>>> because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
>>> that energy.
>>
>>Well, no. When you include the taxes, retail energy prices far exceed
>>the actual cost of using energy.
>
>I'll have to ask for a cite on that one, I'm afraid, since everything
>I've ever read on the subject says that it's wildly wrong.
Fucksake Josh, get a grip. EVERY one of those power companies is
making a profit, usually it takes a minimum of a 10% profit to sustain
a business, so BY DEFINITION the retail energy price far exceeds the
actual cost of the energy.
boots
Most of them are basing their work on the concept of providing an
alternate power source to a standard-wasteful house instead of
reducing energy waste to a minimum first, and then they are basing
their power system designs on what amounts to superstition.
boots
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:23:44 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:14:56 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>On 6 May 2007 12:30:04 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>> The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
>>>>> because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
>>>>> that energy.
>>>>
>>>>Well, no. When you include the taxes, retail energy prices far exceed
>>>>the actual cost of using energy.
>>>
>>>I'll have to ask for a cite on that one, I'm afraid, since everything
>>>I've ever read on the subject says that it's wildly wrong.
>>
>>Most of those in the home power movement strive for perfection and
>>consider themselves lucky to reach near parity in cost versus
>>expense to manufacture. If you're good at scrounging together the
>>necessary equipment from scrap and building it yourself, you can
>>improve your odds.
>>http://www.homepower.com/
>
>I know that site -- looked into it when we decided to build a sun
>porch a while back. Which, at the current rate of progress, will
>happen sometime in 2057.
Building permits, huh?
boots
>On 6 May 2007 12:33:57 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>With Bush's failure to phone the
>>> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
>>
>>It is not _reasonable_ to expect the federal government to manage all
>>the school buses in the country. If you were the president, I think
>>you would be about as successful as Chavez or Mugabe.
>
>Now that has got to be the stupidest single thing anyone has ever said
>here.
Not by a mile.
Pies de Arcilla
Josh Hill wrote:
> On 6 May 2007 12:30:04 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >> The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
> >> because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
> >> that energy.
> >
> >Well, no. When you include the taxes, retail energy prices far exceed
> >the actual cost of using energy.
>
> I'll have to ask for a cite on that one, I'm afraid, since everything
> I've ever read on the subject says that it's wildly wrong.
Why don't you give _me_ a cite for the proposition that taxes are too
low? You made your assertion first. We agree that there is an actual
cost, and therefore a correct amount to tax, yes?
Dead Chef (this one)
"Pies de Arcilla" <dear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178549775....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Why don't you give _me_ a cite for the proposition that taxes are too
> low? You made your assertion first. We agree that there is an actual
> cost, and therefore a correct amount to tax, yes?
Clearly you're new. When Hill says "if I recall correctly" or "I think I
remember reading" that constitutes proof and shifts the burden of production
to the opposition.
$Zero
> I agree that we waste lost of energy. Unfortunately:
>
> - As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
> than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
> enough to make up the difference.
"at this point"
> - It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
> verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
> solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
if true, that sounds bad, but...
what if you manufacture the solar panels using solar power?
or some other low-pollution power source.
that makes that ratio moot, for the most part.
anyway, here's an idea:
they should build all of the nuclear power-creating factories on the
moon where pollution, hazardous waste, and global warming is not an
issue.
no more concerns about half-life this, and half-life that.
no more problems with terrorists either.
and voila!
the moon becomes the battery-making capital of the..., um, world.
the energy-making capital of the world.
we just need to develop an efficient, practical, cost-effective way to
transport all of the goods back and forth.
maybe they can even use the moon rocks as a source of raw materials of
some sort.
-$Zero...
$Zero
> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >On May 4, 12:38?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 3, 7:31?am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On May 2, 12:46?pm, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
> >> >> >> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >if you were president
>
> >> >> >> >what would you do?
>
> >> >> >> 1. Start shopping for a job with a lower ratio of blame to pay.
>
> >> >> >like what?
>
> >> >> Cooking fries at the local burger joint for starters.
>
> >> >and you think that such a job has a lower ratio of blame somehow?
>
> >> >nope.
>
> >> >just a lower level of responsibilities to fuck up.
>
> >> >> No kidding, the President of the US gets paid jack shit compared to
> >> >> the CEO of any significant corporation,
>
> >> >not when you factor in the benefit package, both tangible and
> >> >intangible.
>
> >> >> and no matter what goes wrong
> >> >> anyplace in the world it's his fault.
>
> >> >hogwash.
>
> >> >only the things that are the president's fault are the president's
> >> >fault.
>
> >> >> Worst job on the planet.
>
> >> >every job is exactly what the person doing it makes it.
>
> >> >> Elect me as benevolent dictator and I'll make a few bygawd changes.
>
> >> >like what?
>
> >> You weren't very nice to me earlier in your post, so I think I'll let
> >> you wait and find out after the election along with everybody else;
> >> but do remember to vote for me. <insane_cackle>
>
> >translation: you'll be running as the Republican nominee but you
> >haven't yet decided just how to package it this round.
>
> Oops, you missed by a mile.
you think that i missed describing the nature of the Republican
nominee for president by a mile?
> I don't do that "party" thingy, I only do the other one.
heh.
the insane cackle part.
while guzzling leftover bong water no doubt.
> It would be really gauche for a benevolent dictator to
> have alliances with one party y'know, gotta make the rounds on Friday
> and Saturday night, don't wanna miss any of the good whorse-durves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1LWg1jFp4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmpS5ubQkng
-$Zero...
"Zaphod Beeblebrox...
He's the guy you want to vote for...
When you get into that voting room...
Put an X next to his name...
Zaphod Beeblebrox for President!
President!...
President!!!...
building bridges between the stars...
ah ahh ahhhah...
in no way is he stupid...
oh no...
in no way is his brain impaired...
it's just not true...
he's smarter than you...
and he's better looking too!"
Josh Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>I know that site -- looked into it when we decided to build a sun
>>porch a while back. Which, at the current rate of progress, will
>>happen sometime in 2057.
>
>Oh. Is that when the sun is scheduled to come back out there?
There's a sun here?
Josh Hill
Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce, more like. Land's finally unencumbered and up
for sale, but it's a big parcel and the sale could take some time.
Josh Hill
You appear to have misread my words: I referred to the actual cost of
/using/ the energy. It is significantly higher than the retail price
plus taxes. That's because a) energy prices are subsidized through tax
breaks and outright subsidies; b) energy prices do not include the
costs of externalities, e.g., the economic penalties of pollution,
e.g., illness and damage to forests and structures; and c) energy
prices do not include the military cost of protecting fuel supplies in
unstable regions, or the costs of dealing with petrodollar-financed
terrorism or proliferation. Naturally enough, estimates of these added
costs vary, but I haven't seen any estimates that don't suggest that
the price we pay for energy isn't significantly lower than the actual
cost.
Josh Hill
ITYMTS "Hi, Pies, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about any
more than you do."
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Home heating and cooling amount to 45% of a typical home's energy
>>expenditure; hot water, 11%. I don't have a separate figure for
>>heating (solar cooling is possible but flaky), but I think it's clear
>>that heating and hot water constitute a major portion of the typical
>>household's utility bill. Where sunlight is limited, it makes much
>>more sense from an environmental and economic perspective to use it
>>efficiently than to use it inefficiently.
>
>Most people don't even know what a tankless water heater is, they just
>yell when the shower turns cold and piss about the bill.
Can't say I blame them for yelling . . .
>>>>- I think one has to choose the options that are most likely to be
>>>>acceptable to the general public.
>>>
>>>Fuck the "general public", they're the ones got us into this mess,
>>>it's every man for himself.
>>
>>Doesn't really work, though, does it?
>
>Well yes, I think it does. Though it may not in cities.
>
>> I mean, it's not like we can
>>paint a rainbow in the nursery and have Bleak Houses of our own: we
>>share the planet.
>
>Since the planet is shared and the other guys will fuck it up, no
>point in keeping our own mess down? I don't buy that approach.
Why not? I mean, I'm all in favor of setting a good example by trying
not to shoot up in front of very small children and all, but the sorry
truth is that even if I decided to live in a solar-powered Quonset hut
and chug Beano it wouldn't put a detectable blip in greenhouse
emissions. Which isn't to say that I don't try to be environmentally
responsible -- I've spent an awful lot of time caulking and
insulating, we use compact fluroescents, and we plan to install solar
heating when we extend the house. But that the figures are stark:
individual efforts aren't enough, they aren't nearly enough, they
aren't nearly nearly nearly enough; it will take most of the
international community to stop global warming, and that won't happen
until we have a president who can outthink a Raggedy Andy doll.
>>>The general public will continue to choose the easiest/cheapest
>>>alternatives, anything else would be insane. Their sanity allows
>>>their manipulation. Sanity is like that innit, it's a fuckin plot.
>>
>>The problem is that we aren't dealing with an ideal market here,
>>because retail energy prices don't reflect the actual cost of using
>>that energy. People think that they're choosing the most economical
>>alternative, but they aren't.
>
>Yesterday I was driving (riding actually, Mrs Boots is far too wise to
>allow me behind the wheel except in emergencies) through Denver.
>Houses as far as the eye can see, much farther, in any direction. So
>I turns to her and I says, "At this very moment there are literally
>hundreds of thousands of people flushing shit down their toilet, now
>where the fuck does it all go?"
That's easy: it goes through the municipal sewer system into the Grand
National Waste Canal, and the GNWC empties into misc.writing.
>I have no choice but to keep it simple, even at that level it's beyond
>me.
Sewage treatment plants, actually, where the poo is broken down before
it's discharged into the water. Pretty straightforward, and an example
of what government can do when it puts a mind to it, because there
were stunning improvements in the nation's water quality after the
/Federal government mandated them./
Kurt Ullman
Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> responsible -- I've spent an awful lot of time caulking and
> insulating, we use compact fluroescents, and we plan to install solar
> heating when we extend the house.
Don't break the bulbs. Because of the mercury you can't legally put
the results in regular garbage, it has to be taken whereever you go to
get rid of hazardous wastes. Most state version EPAs also suggest you
don't use a vacuum cleaner since it will only serve to concentrate the
mercury. Also, they suggest you close up the room and don't even try to
clean it up for 15 minutes or so, to allow the mercury levels in the
room to get below hazardous levels. Oh, and you can't legally just toss
the burnout bulbs in the trash either. But other than that, they are
envrionmentally friendly.
energystar.gov/ia/.../change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
But that the figures are stark:
> individual efforts aren't enough, they aren't nearly enough, they
> aren't nearly nearly nearly enough; it will take most of the
> international community to stop global warming, and that won't happen
> until we have a president who can outthink a Raggedy Andy doll.
But individual efforts in the aggregate are the only thing that will
get er done. Abdicating personal responsibility, how very liberal of you.
> Sewage treatment plants, actually, where the poo is broken down before
> it's discharged into the water. Pretty straightforward, and an example
> of what government can do when it puts a mind to it, because there
> were stunning improvements in the nation's water quality after the
> /Federal government mandated them./
even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
Josh Hill
>On May 5, 4:16?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that we waste lost of energy. Unfortunately:
>>
>> - As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
>> than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
>> enough to make up the difference.
>
>"at this point"
Sure. That's why I left it as an open question -- we just don't know
when that will be the case.
>> - It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
>> verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
>> solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
>
>if true, that sounds bad, but...
>
>what if you manufacture the solar panels using solar power?
Same thing would happen, since the solar panels that made the solar
power would take more energy to make than they would produce.
>
>or some other low-pollution power source.
That's a definite possibility. But -- why not then use the other
low-pollution power source directly? All you're doing in most cases is
adding inefficiency. There are exceptions to that, e.g., there are
cases in which a solar panel would be more economical than tying into
the grid, but they're limited.
>that makes that ratio moot, for the most part.
>
>anyway, here's an idea:
>
>they should build all of the nuclear power-creating factories on the
>moon where pollution, hazardous waste, and global warming is not an
>issue.
>
>no more concerns about half-life this, and half-life that.
>
>no more problems with terrorists either.
>
>and voila!
>
>the moon becomes the battery-making capital of the..., um, world.
>
>the energy-making capital of the world.
Robert Heinlein famously suggested putting nuclear power plants in
orbit in 1940, before a nuclear reactor had even been built ("Blowups
Happen"). But AFAIK the cost of lofting large reactors would be high,
even though they don't require the shielding and containment structure
that an earth-based reactor does Also, fueling them would be
environmentally dangerous, since the fissionable material would have
to be launched in rockets, which can fail.
Space is ideal for solar energy production -- the energy can be
produced with solar sells and beamed down to earth using microwaves.
Back in the 70's, there were some very cool proposals for huge fleets
of reusable spacecraft. There used to be a great site with information
and drawings, but I can't find it.
>we just need to develop an efficient, practical, cost-effective way to
>transport all of the goods back and forth.
>maybe they can even use the moon rocks as a source of raw materials of
>some sort.
Helium 3 is /way/ cool:
'A potential gas source found on the moon's surface could hold the key
to meeting future energy demands as the earth's fossil fuels dry up in
the coming decades, scientists say.
'Mineral samples from the moon contain abundant quantities of
helium-3, a variant of the gas used in lasers and refrigerators.
' "When compared to the earth the moon has a tremendous amount of
helium-3," Lawrence Taylor, a director of the US Planetary Geosciences
Institute, said.
' "When helium-3 combines with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) the
fusion reaction proceeds at a very high temperature and it can produce
awesome amounts of energy.
' "Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a space
shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one full
year".'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm
Unfortunately, it's not exactly a short-term project.
And check out this NASA paper. The author concludes,
'Based on the recently-completed "fresh look" study, space solar power
concepts may be ready to reenter the discussion. Certainly, solar
power satellites should no longer be envisioned as requiring
unimaginably large initial investments in fixed infrastructure before
the emplacement of productive power plants can begin. Moreover, space
solar power systems appear to possess many significant environmental
advantages when compared to alternative approaches to meeting
increasing terrestrial demands for energy - including requiring
considerably less land area than terrestrially-based solar power
systems.
'The economic viability of such systems depends, of course, on many
factors and the successful development of various new technologies -
not least of which is the availability of exceptionally low cost
access to space. However, the same can be said of many other advanced
power technologies options. Space solar power may well emerge as a
serious candidate among the options for meeting the energy demands of
the 21st century.'
Which is to say, no one really knows. . . .
Josh Hill
OK, so I lied.
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:37:47 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6 May 2007 12:33:57 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>>With Bush's failure to phone the
>>>>> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
>>>>
>>>>It is not _reasonable_ to expect the federal government to manage all
>>>>the school buses in the country. If you were the president, I think
>>>>you would be about as successful as Chavez or Mugabe.
>>>
>>>Now that has got to be the stupidest single thing anyone has ever said
>>>here.
>>
>>Not by a mile.
>
>OK, so I lied.
Knock it off, Josh. That's Sylvia's job!
--
Ray
Josh Hill
wrote:
>In article <u46v33d5an44l2foa...@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> responsible -- I've spent an awful lot of time caulking and
>> insulating, we use compact fluroescents, and we plan to install solar
>> heating when we extend the house.
>
> Don't break the bulbs. Because of the mercury you can't legally put
>the results in regular garbage, it has to be taken whereever you go to
>get rid of hazardous wastes. Most state version EPAs also suggest you
>don't use a vacuum cleaner since it will only serve to concentrate the
>mercury. Also, they suggest you close up the room and don't even try to
>clean it up for 15 minutes or so, to allow the mercury levels in the
>room to get below hazardous levels. Oh, and you can't legally just toss
>the burnout bulbs in the trash either. But other than that, they are
>envrionmentally friendly.
I go out of my way to avoid breaking fluorescent lamps. On the rare
occasions when I do, I've always done pretty much as you suggest --
hightailed it out of there until the mercury vapor dissipated. Then I
put on disposable gloves and a respirator and clean up the mess.
Mercury pollution is a serious environmental problem, but warming is
worse.
>energystar.gov/ia/.../change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
>
>But that the figures are stark:
>> individual efforts aren't enough, they aren't nearly enough, they
>> aren't nearly nearly nearly enough; it will take most of the
>> international community to stop global warming, and that won't happen
>> until we have a president who can outthink a Raggedy Andy doll.
> But individual efforts in the aggregate are the only thing that will
>get er done. Abdicating personal responsibility, how very liberal of you.
Even if the entire population were motivated -- and it's no secret
that the individuals who take the most personal responsibility for the
environment are liberals) -- individuals can no more solve the problem
than they were able to fix water pollution, because the fixes are
technological and economic. And that will require government action,
as anyone who isn't dancing to the tired tune of anti-government
extremism can see.
>> Sewage treatment plants, actually, where the poo is broken down before
>> it's discharged into the water. Pretty straightforward, and an example
>> of what government can do when it puts a mind to it, because there
>> were stunning improvements in the nation's water quality after the
>> /Federal government mandated them./
> even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.
Almost all of the progress we've made in cleaning up the environment
has been the result of government action; almost none of it has been
the result of personal initiative or that contradiction in terms,
corporate responsibility. Even the ideologically blinkered should be
able to see that.
Josh Hill
I thought Sylvia was in charge of scampering?
Dead Chef (this one)
"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sl5v33l9l0q62b3ol...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:50:05 -0400, "Dead Chef \(this one\)"
> <knoc...@heavensdoor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pies de Arcilla" <dear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1178549775....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Why don't you give _me_ a cite for the proposition that taxes are too
>>> low? You made your assertion first. We agree that there is an actual
>>> cost, and therefore a correct amount to tax, yes?
>>
>>Clearly you're new. When Hill says "if I recall correctly" or "I think I
>>remember reading" that constitutes proof and shifts the burden of
>>production
>>to the opposition.
>
> ITYMTS "Hi, Pies, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about any
> more than you do."
If you want me to plow your field again you'll have to do better than that,
fucktoy.
$Zero
> On 7 May 2007 10:33:06 -0700, $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 4:16?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree that we waste lost of energy. Unfortunately:
>
> >> - As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
> >> than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
> >> enough to make up the difference.
>
> >"at this point"
>
> Sure. That's why I left it as an open question -- we just don't know
> when that will be the case.
but we can extrapolate that it would happen much sooner if more time,
energy, and focus were applied to it and the alternatives.
> >> - It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
> >> verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
> >> solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
>
> >if true, that sounds bad, but...
>
> >what if you manufacture the solar panels using solar power?
>
> Same thing would happen, since the solar panels that made the solar
> power would take more energy to make than they would produce.
but since the energy from the sun is essentially inexhaustable and
largely pollution free (as far as using it as a manufacturing energy
source) the more that solar power is used to create silicon solar
panels, the more efficient it gets -- get it?
> >or some other low-pollution power source.
>
> That's a definite possibility. But -- why not then use the other
> low-pollution power source directly?
because creating solar panels yields solar panels -- thus harnassing
the free energy of the sun.
duh.
the other low-pollution sources are likely more troublesome and
expensive.
oh, wait. i get it.
but...
> All you're doing in most cases is adding inefficiency.
when you produce a product that harnasses the freely available energy
from the sun, it's hardly creating an inefficiency.
sort of.
> There are exceptions to that, e.g., there are
> cases in which a solar panel would be more economical than tying into
> the grid, but they're limited.
due to the astoundingly irrelevant emotional variables involved, the
complexity of the economics of the whole conversion process will
always be just beyond calculable.
kinda.
still, i'll bet that the real cost of creating solar panels is
seriously over-estimated.
especially if one were to factor in the effiency-creating elements of
the marketplace.
IOW: if there was a bigger paying market for solar panels, the cost of
producing them would quickly diminish to nearly nothing.
that's just an entrepreneurial hunch, mind you.
> >that makes that ratio moot, for the most part.
>
> >anyway, here's an idea:
>
> >they should build all of the nuclear power-creating factories on the
> >moon where pollution, hazardous waste, and global warming is not an
> >issue.
>
> >no more concerns about half-life this, and half-life that.
>
> >no more problems with terrorists either.
>
> >and voila!
>
> >the moon becomes the battery-making capital of the..., um, world.
>
> >the energy-making capital of the world.
-$Zero...
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>Even if the entire population were motivated -- and it's no secret
>that the individuals who take the most personal responsibility for the
>environment are liberals) -- individuals can no more solve the problem
>than they were able to fix water pollution, because the fixes are
>technological and economic.
Liberals sure do give the issue more "lip-service" without any
"do-service." Screaming bloody murder about how bad it is while
opposing practical solutions is no badge of honor for liberals.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
$Zero <ze...@whooooooosh.com> instead replied:
>duh.
>
>but...
>
>sort of.
>
>kinda.
>
>IOW: Zero...
Ray Haddad
and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>On Tue, 08 May 2007 07:04:00 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:24:57 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>>and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:37:47 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6 May 2007 12:33:57 -0700, Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>>>>With Bush's failure to phone the
>>>>>>> Acme School Bus Company and get buses to the stadium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not _reasonable_ to expect the federal government to manage all
>>>>>>the school buses in the country. If you were the president, I think
>>>>>>you would be about as successful as Chavez or Mugabe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that has got to be the stupidest single thing anyone has ever said
>>>>>here.
>>>>
>>>>Not by a mile.
>>>
>>>OK, so I lied.
>>
>>Knock it off, Josh. That's Sylvia's job!
>
>I thought Sylvia was in charge of scampering?
Scampering and tampering with posts and lying. That's her.
The Supreme Fool of MW is her real title.
--
Ray
"Who would have guessed? Occam had a beard!" - Taylor Bight
$Zero
> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>
> >Even if the entire population were motivated -- and it's no secret
> >that the individuals who take the most personal responsibility for the
> >environment are liberals) -- individuals can no more solve the problem
> >than they were able to fix water pollution, because the fixes are
> >technological and economic.
>
> Liberals sure do give the issue more "lip-service" without any
> "do-service." Screaming bloody murder about how bad it is while
> opposing practical solutions is no badge of honor for liberals.
OTOH, there is no badge of honor for "conservatives", period.
that said, i hereby nominate Ray poster-boy of same.
Raypert Pupkin:
No-Badge-of-Honor "Conservative" Environmentalist Poster-boy
-$Zero...
$Zero
> $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> instead replied:
>
>
>
> >duh.
>
> >but...
>
> >sort of.
>
> >kinda.
>
> >IOW: Zero
IOW: a gazillion times more creative and thought-provoking than Ray
without ever breaking a sweat.
-$Zero...
Ray Haddad
$Zero <ze...@whooooooosh.com> instead replied:
I can name many things liberals have screamed about while actually
opposing fixes for them. Below are three. Do the same for
conservatives, Xero.
1. Liberals scream about greenhouse emissions while opposing
hydroelectric projects, dams and nuclear power out of hand.
2. Liberals oppose logging and oppose reforestation at the same
time.
3. Liberals pass legislation barring land use for recreation while
being sure it is open for liberal projects. Of particular note is
the California Desert Protection Act.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
$Zero <ze...@whooooooosh.com> instead replied:
>IOW: Duh!!
--
Ray
Josh Hill
<knoc...@heavensdoor.com> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sl5v33l9l0q62b3ol...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:50:05 -0400, "Dead Chef \(this one\)"
>> <knoc...@heavensdoor.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pies de Arcilla" <dear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1178549775....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Why don't you give _me_ a cite for the proposition that taxes are too
>>>> low? You made your assertion first. We agree that there is an actual
>>>> cost, and therefore a correct amount to tax, yes?
>>>
>>>Clearly you're new. When Hill says "if I recall correctly" or "I think I
>>>remember reading" that constitutes proof and shifts the burden of
>>>production
>>>to the opposition.
>>
>> ITYMTS "Hi, Pies, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about any
>> more than you do."
>
>If you want me to plow your field again you'll have to do better than that,
>fucktoy.
Forget it, fundoc. You're the master of substantive discourse, and I'm
the master of insults, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part
is going to change that.
Josh Hill
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 20:54:34 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>and Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> instead replied:
>
>>Even if the entire population were motivated -- and it's no secret
>>that the individuals who take the most personal responsibility for the
>>environment are liberals) -- individuals can no more solve the problem
>>than they were able to fix water pollution, because the fixes are
>>technological and economic.
>
>Liberals sure do give the issue more "lip-service" without any
>"do-service."
I haven't noticed that. How do you measure? All I know is that the
superannuated hippies building solar weirdnesses in the sides of hills
don't seem very conservative to me.
> Screaming bloody murder about how bad it is while
>opposing practical solutions is no badge of honor for liberals.
For every case of that, e.g., knee-jerk opposition to fission plants,
I see many more cases in which conservatives are the ones opposing the
solutions, and even refusing to recognize the existence of the
problem.
Josh Hill
>On May 7, 6:24?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7 May 2007 10:33:06 -0700, $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
>> >On May 5, 4:16?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I agree that we waste lost of energy. Unfortunately:
>>
>> >> - As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
>> >> than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
>> >> enough to make up the difference.
>>
>> >"at this point"
>>
>> Sure. That's why I left it as an open question -- we just don't know
>> when that will be the case.
>
>but we can extrapolate that it would happen much sooner if more time,
>energy, and focus were applied to it and the alternatives.
Probably. But from what I've read, the technology is still very
chancy. Engineering is like that: frequently, you just don't know what
will work best 20 years down the line, so you're best bet is to
finance basic research in multiple areas and then boost funding for
areas that show special promise. Then you can let them compete in the
marketplace.
>> >> - It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
>> >> verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
>> >> solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
>>
>> >if true, that sounds bad, but...
>>
>> >what if you manufacture the solar panels using solar power?
>>
>> Same thing would happen, since the solar panels that made the solar
>> power would take more energy to make than they would produce.
>
>but since the energy from the sun is essentially inexhaustable and
>largely pollution free (as far as using it as a manufacturing energy
>source) the more that solar power is used to create silicon solar
>panels, the more efficient it gets -- get it?
What your overlooking is that a solar panel /doesn't produce enough
energy over its lifetime/ to create another solar panel. It's like
losing something on every sale and trying to make it up on volume.
>> >or some other low-pollution power source.
>>
>> That's a definite possibility. But -- why not then use the other
>> low-pollution power source directly?
>
>because creating solar panels yields solar panels -- thus harnassing
>the free energy of the sun.
>
>duh.
>
>the other low-pollution sources are likely more troublesome and
>expensive.
Not really. Wind, for example, is quite economical at this point,
almost competitive with conventional power sources.
>still, i'll bet that the real cost of creating solar panels is
>seriously over-estimated.
I don't know. They're certainly costly. As I said, I haven't seen the
figures on EROEI myself.
>IOW: if there was a bigger paying market for solar panels, the cost of
>producing them would quickly diminish to nearly nothing.
>
>that's just an entrepreneurial hunch, mind you.
It's true, at least to some extent, and the prices have been
diminishing steadily, but it does no good if they have a negative
EROEI.
What we really need is improved technology, and, as I said, that's
blowin' in the wind.
$Zero
> On 7 May 2007 19:51:35 -0700, $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >On May 7, 6:24?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7 May 2007 10:33:06 -0700, $Zero <z...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 5, 4:16?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I agree that we waste lost of energy. Unfortunately:
>
> >> >> - As things now stand, solar electricity is so much more expensive
> >> >> than the alternatives at this point that conservation wouldn't be
> >> >> enough to make up the difference.
>
> >> >"at this point"
>
> >> Sure. That's why I left it as an open question -- we just don't know
> >> when that will be the case.
>
> >but we can extrapolate that it would happen much sooner if more time,
> >energy, and focus were applied to it and the alternatives.
>
> Probably. But from what I've read, the technology is still very
> chancy.
the existing technology may be chancy, but reliance on the sun as an
energy source is hardly chancy.
> Engineering is like that: frequently, you just don't know what
> will work best 20 years down the line,
i'd say that it's a pretty safe bet that the sun will be a reliable
energy source for at least 20 years down the line.
i'd even venture to guess one could risk basing technology on the sun
even 100 years down the line.
heh.
but seriously, you seem to be over-focusing on silicon solar panels as
the be-all and end-all of solar power conversion.
there are infinite other possibilities and configurations.
i mean, just consider trees, FFS.
> so you're best bet is to
> finance basic research in multiple areas and then boost funding for
> areas that show special promise. Then you can let them compete in the
> marketplace.
the best bet is to recruit creative thinkers.
> >> >> - It's been said by a knowledgeable source -- although I haven't
> >> >> verified it myself -- that it takes more energy to make a silicon
> >> >> solar panel than the panel will yield over its lifetime
>
> >> >if true, that sounds bad, but...
>
> >> >what if you manufacture the solar panels using solar power?
>
> >> Same thing would happen, since the solar panels that made the solar
> >> power would take more energy to make than they would produce.
>
> >but since the energy from the sun is essentially inexhaustable and
> >largely pollution free (as far as using it as a manufacturing energy
> >source) the more that solar power is used to create silicon solar
> >panels, the more efficient it gets -- get it?
>
> What your overlooking is that a solar panel /doesn't produce enough
> energy over its lifetime/ to create another solar panel.
what you're overlooking is the "cost" and availability of the raw
materials at the core of solar power -- which would otherwise be
wasted.
and then you're presupposing that solar power efficiency will never
get efficient enough to create another solar panel.
> It's like
> losing something on every sale and trying to make it up on volume.
well, given that the main source of production is the sun, it's
virtually practical to do so.
> >> >or some other low-pollution power source.
>
> >> That's a definite possibility. But -- why not then use the other
> >> low-pollution power source directly?
>
> >because creating solar panels yields solar panels -- thus harnassing
> >the free energy of the sun.
>
> >duh.
>
> >the other low-pollution sources are likely more troublesome and
> >expensive.
>
> Not really. Wind, for example, is quite economical at this point,
> almost competitive with conventional power sources.
well then, use wind to create solar panels.
LOL
mother nature enters the free marketplace!
> >still, i'll bet that the real cost of creating solar panels is
> >seriously over-estimated.
>
> I don't know. They're certainly costly.
what's the biggest cost?
> As I said, I haven't seen the figures on EROEI myself.
oh.
> >IOW: if there was a bigger paying market for solar panels, the cost of
> >producing them would quickly diminish to nearly nothing.
>
> >that's just an entrepreneurial hunch, mind you.
>
> It's true, at least to some extent, and the prices have been
> diminishing steadily, but it does no good if they have a negative
> EROEI.
i find it hard to believe that there's an inherently negative EROEI
there.
my hunch is that it's politically tweaked in some way.
although, i read in wiki that on earth, the sun only gives out about
1600 watts per square meter, so...
that seems a bit depressing, practical-energy-efficiency-hope-wise.
but... i remain hopeful nevertheless.
> What we really need is improved technology, and, as I said, that's
> blowin' in the wind.
gravity power!
-$Zero...
Kurt Ullman
$Zero <ze...@whooooooosh.com> wrote:
> the existing technology may be chancy, but reliance on the sun as an
> energy source is hardly chancy.
Depends on where you live, how much of the time the sun is actually
shining. Cloudy days cut the usefulness of solar energy.
>
> but seriously, you seem to be over-focusing on silicon solar panels as
> the be-all and end-all of solar power conversion.
>
> there are infinite other possibilities and configurations.
>
> i mean, just consider trees, FFS.
Consider them how? Anything on the drawing boards to have trees
convert sun light into energy?
John Ashby
Plenty.
john
Kurt Ullman
John Ashby <J.V....@rl.ac.uk> wrote:
Tell me more. Like where can I find information on this. I Googled
without any luck, probably asked the wrong questions.
John Ashby
Try googling for biomass
john