OT - YKIOK? (politics)
Serion Ironcroft
Fair use quote:
> Lohse's study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and
> statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of
> a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more
> psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush."
or
Second quote:
> "Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative
> leader," Lohse says. "If your world is very mixed up, there's something
> very comforting about someone telling you, 'This is how it's going to be.'"
Lohse says that the study grew out of an advocacy project designed to
register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls. The
Bush trend was discovered when Lohse was analyzing information derived
from the project.
I have a personal feeling you don't have to be too psychotic to be seeking
some sort of comfort in today's complicated world. Unfortunately, as we've
discovered in the past 6 years, a comforting fantasy is not always an
effective basis for coping with a complicated world.
Regards, Serion
Don SideB
<ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org> wrote:
>Reported last week by the New Haven Advocate:
>
>Fair use quote:
>
>> Lohse's study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and
>> statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of
>> a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more
>> psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush."
I did not know that psychosis was regarded as a kink.
I'm sure that if someone were to conduct a study, they could prove
that the more sociopathic the voter, the more likely they were to vote
Democrat. (Willingness to form a gang to steal the fruits of other's
labors being pretty sociopathic to me.)
Where is Spyral when we need her? I'd love to see her analysis of the
methodology of that study. It looks to me like a non-representative
sample at the least.
But the real question has to be: Why was someone making an active
effort to get psychotics to vote?
Don
Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.
Brian Downstairs
hands...
Brian
--
mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk
I hope I grow on you...
I'm a Fungi!!!
Blindness is a way of life.
"Serion Ironcroft" <ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.30....@ironcroftcaravan.org...
SilverOz
Serion Ironcroft <ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org> wrote:
>
> I have a personal feeling you don't have to be too psychotic to be seeking
> some sort of comfort in today's complicated world. Unfortunately, as we've
> discovered in the past 6 years, a comforting fantasy is not always an
> effective basis for coping with a complicated world.
>
No, which is why people who want a dom to sort out their lives are
doomed to failure!
And why doms who think their job is to sort out lives are too I
suspect.
SilverOz
IrishWinks
<ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org> wrote:
Interesting article. Thanks.
And I agree with your conclusion. Indulging in fantasy is a treat,
not a method of sustaining a life or a nation.
Winks
*Note email addy is munged. Correct email is irishwinks at bresnan dot net.
fnordikins
>
> And I agree with your conclusion. Indulging in fantasy is a treat,
> not a method of sustaining a life or a nation.
>
Unless you are me.
Ruth Lawrence
"SilverOz" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnemuor5...@gmail.com...
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:35:20 -0600
> Serion Ironcroft <ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have a personal feeling you don't have to be too psychotic to be
>> seeking
>> some sort of comfort in today's complicated world. Unfortunately, as
>> we've
>> discovered in the past 6 years, a comforting fantasy is not always an
>> effective basis for coping with a complicated world.
>>
>
> No, which is why people who want a dom to sort out their lives are
> doomed to failure!
Best settle for encouragement and the like, I imagine.
> And why doms who think their job is to sort out lives are too I
> suspect.
heh!
I've yet to meet one whose owning sorting was sufficiently exemplary that
I'd consider allowing it.
Of course, my sample size is small...but...
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
"fnordikins" <fnord...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.12.01....@yahoo.com...
...the bluetiful exception to every rule!
Ruth
IrishWinks
wrote:
You are one of a kind, but you bring up a good point. If there were
more like you in the US, Bush never would have been elected in the
first place.
fnordikins
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:51:19 -0500, fnordikins <fnord...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> You are one of a kind, but you bring up a good point. If there were
> more like you in the US, Bush never would have been elected in the
> first place.
My humans have voted against him in both elections. Not that it did them
any good.
I'm not allowed to vote.
IrishWinks
Yes, and someone who is any good at sorting would know better than to
bail me out of my own sorting anyway. I wouldn't settle for less.
DonSideB
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:17:02 -0700, IrishWinks wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:51:19 -0500, fnordikins <fnord...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> You are one of a kind, but you bring up a good point. If there were
>> more like you in the US, Bush never would have been elected in the
>> first place.
>
>My humans have voted against him in both elections. Not that it did them
>any good.
It is always interesting watching folks running with a flawed premise,
but at some point it is necessary to provide a reality check.
The premise is that psychotics will vote for a more authoritarian
leader in direct proportion to the depth of their psychosis. You folks
are applying that premise to the election of Bush without considering
the alternatives, Gore and Kerry.
Though Bush might be seen as authoritarian in some parts of life which
are of great importance to this group, by any rational measure, both
Gore and Kerry are far more authoritarian overall, and in the areas
that most affect our lives.
If you look beyond Bush's lip service to a "marriage amendment" he
knows full well will never be ratified, his policies are far less
intrusive in our daily lives than Gore's loony tunes environmental
policy and Kerry's economic policies.
Bush has certainly disappointed me in many ways, but he has not
advocated interference into our daily lives at any level close to what
the alternatives have, and still, advocate. So, if the premise of that
study is correct, the Democrats have a permanent lock on the psychotic
vote.
Don
DonSideB
Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
David Weinshenker
> If you look beyond Bush's lip service to a "marriage amendment" he
> knows full well will never be ratified, his policies are far less
> intrusive in our daily lives than Gore's loony tunes environmental
> policy and Kerry's economic policies.
What about things like the "Real ID Act" and all the other
"9/11-changed-everything" stuff that's leading us down the
slippery slope to a "your-papers-please" police state?
That sort of thing worries me far more about the future
of American Liberty than Gore's campaign against Global
Warming does. (Your attitude seems to be "go ahead, treat
us all like Potential-Terrorists-Until-Proven-Otherwise...
just don't raise taxes or tell us what kind of fuel we
should use in our cars!"...)
-dave w
DonSideB
<daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>DonSideB wrote:
>> If you look beyond Bush's lip service to a "marriage amendment" he
>> knows full well will never be ratified, his policies are far less
>> intrusive in our daily lives than Gore's loony tunes environmental
>> policy and Kerry's economic policies.
>
>What about things like the "Real ID Act" and all the other
>"9/11-changed-everything" stuff that's leading us down the
>slippery slope to a "your-papers-please" police state?
>
I've never understood the objection to standardization of drivers
licenses and other official ID into a forgery proof system. If such an
ID was available commercially, I would gladly buy it. It is to my
advantage to be able to positively establish my identity and exclude
others from posing as me.
I have some objections to the uses such an ID could be put to, but
those are separate issues.
What is your objection to an ID system that would prevent someone from
buying explosives or poisons using your name?
>That sort of thing worries me far more about the future
>of American Liberty than Gore's campaign against Global
>Warming does. (Your attitude seems to be "go ahead, treat
>us all like Potential-Terrorists-Until-Proven-Otherwise...
>just don't raise taxes or tell us what kind of fuel we
>should use in our cars!"...)
But you are not concerned about real terrorists circulating freely
under false names?
Gore and Kerry's planned intrusions into your freedoms go far beyond
what kind of fuel you might choose to use. Don't confuse government
tyranny with which you agree with freedom, they are not the same
thing.
SilverOz
Serion Ironcroft <ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org> wrote:
>
> Fair use quote:
>
>> Lohse's study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and
>> statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of
>> a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more
>> psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush."
>
MIght want to check Orac's debunking:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/psychotics_prefer_bush.php
"The post hoc analysis of data gathered for another purpose and data
dredging (a.k.a. data snooping, which occurs when a given set of data
is used more than once for purposes of inference or model selection)
used to come up with this result don't make the study "illegitimate."
However, they sure as hell make its conclusions very, very suspect at
best, particularly given that there were only 69 patients examined in
the study."
for example.
SilverOz
All hail Discordia
wrote:
If this was only done during the last election then Bush as the
incumbant might have represented stability, while Kerry was an
unknown. Party lines may have had nothing to do with the psycotic
vote.
--
Grant
David Weinshenker
> But you are not concerned about real terrorists circulating freely
> under false names?
If "real terrorists" are "circulating freely", it scarcely matters
whether they're using "false names"...
Look, if our model of "how we're going to beat The Terrorists" is
the assumption that we must establish an official Identity for
every person, so we can check everyone against some list and filter
out The Bad People, we've got a problem right there... if nothing
else, it implies that we assume that "dealing with the Terrorism
Problem" reduces to taking a specific set of individuals out of
circulation...
It wouldn't surprise me if the structure of the situation is more
like what we encountered in the Vietnam war: the more we tried to
"wipe out the Viet Cong", the more the people of South Vietnam
were motivated to fight for unification with the North - that is,
to _become_ Viet Cong. Suppose the "Islamic militant threat" is
like that: not so much a matter of a specific set of individuals
as a behavioral tropism, a performative identity - less of a "set
of militants" than a widespread "pattern of action".
Strengthening the authority of "the Identity Police" to force
everyone to answer to a Real Name that they can compare against
a list only works if you can know who to put on the list in the
first place. (I think this corresponds to what the computer-security
folks refer to as "the fallacy of trying to Enumerate Badness"...)
-dave w
Bob King
> This is the same reason I get a little miffed at lefties who go around talking
> about how great Hugo Chavez is just because he waves around Noam Chomsky
> books. Yeah, face reality. He's not some kind of great dissident, he's just
> another tinpot dictator who goes around blaming either (a) George Bush or (b)
> the Jews for all his country's problems.
Perhaps they are just pointing out how nice it would be to have a
leader who could read. Even if he had to have the big concepts
explained. BTW, I've never quite understood why Noam is seen as
"liberal." But I guess it's because his observations haven't pointed
out the idiocies of any liberal or progressive policies as of yet. In
that regard, he's an "inconvenient truth-teller" in waiting.
I like passing this link around - I keep it linked from my blog's
sidebar, in my del.icio.us feed, actually. <a
href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/</a>
Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans
show
In fact, "ignoring facts" could even qualify as a kink, because we are
talking about direct brain reward, and if you want to understand how
Jim Jones got people to *literally* drink the Kool-Aide, this will
explain it to you. Direct brain reward trumps personal self-interest,
even when you are perfectly capable of figuring out where that interest
lies.
Trust me on that one. My understanding of cult dynamics and
meta-programming is not based in theory.
Aside to DonSideB - a non-partisan observation: I note that a number of
your assumptions *seem* to be based on the idea of "this idea is good,
because it's to the advantage of the ruling/controlling classes," Eg,
the promotion of social stability, ensuring that the wrong people don't
get their hands on the "wrong" things, and can't pass themselves off as
a member of the "right" group.
No, this isn't a "liberal" argument. It's a question. *Who* determines
who is in the correct group, and *why* should you be subject to their
whims, even if their whims may benefit you today?
And - arguendo - even if under ordinary circumstances you COULD and
perhaps arguably should, this administration screwed up the
post-invasion scenario in Iraq because they selected for ideological
purity over competence and experience. I suggest to you that there is
no reason and no basis upon which to defend that choice from any
rational conservative perspective; indeed, the only mental framework it
seems to have much in common with is the disastrous social experiment
we refer to as "The Cultural Revolution." In both cases, persons were
selected for their duties based on one criterion; their "revolutionary
fervor."
Or in other words, their willingness to blind themselves to contrary
facts even when they were standing in a reeking puddle of it.
To me, the concept of "authority" is dependant upon having demonstrated
an authoritative grasp of the relevant situation. It does not relate at
all, in my mind, to being put in a position of authority, save that
there is that duty that comes with the position. I also feel that it's
a social duty to punish those who misrepresent themselves in order to
gain power, which is why I advocate impeachment. It's not because I
particularly wish to see Nancy Pelosi in the White house - that's
merely a price I'm willing to pay to see some justice done.
I'm a lib, and I generally prefer a centrist conservative approach to
governance, so Pelosi would be somewhere below the bottom of the list
of people I'd like to see in the oval office.
But I'm a reality-based lib. To me, broad liberties and broad freedoms
require a higher level of awareness. Or in other words, libs are the
people who do not have to be told that it's a bad thing to ingest the
little package of desiccant in the bottom of the pill bottle. And it
also means there is an implied willingness to take the lumps that come
from exercising one's liberties. That would be one of them lumps.
These days the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are attached to the
weirdest things. For instance, you cite Al Gore's global
warming-influenced environmental policy as being obviously wacky. Well,
if it is, it seems to be a wackyness that the vast majority of those
who are genuinely qualified to evaluate the data generally agree upon.
The globe is warming - and at a rate that is noticeable within
disturbingly short time-frames. Anything we can do to alter that rate
of change is worth doing up to the point where it becomes as disruptive
to us as the alternative. Wasting time about arguing who caused it, or
if those melting icebergs are "really" melting strikes me as being
dense.
Meanwhile, "Conservative" has come to be attached to a very bellicose,
paranoid and fearful mindset; one that reminds me much more of the Reds
of my youth ranting on about the perils of the Military-Industrial
Complex and the evils of Capitalism. They are frothing about "secular
humanism" and "moral relativism" and a small portfolio of other
shibboleths. The worst single trait they share in common is a
willingness to accept the most absurd assumptions about the motivations
of people who do not share their ideology. EG, the "Welfare Breeder"
fallacy - objectively false. The "Homosexual Agenda" portfolio of
fallacies. And let us not forget the "War on Christmas," for a
particularly laughable example.
Today's Conservatism seems to analogous to reactive horror to the
passing of the horse and buggy monopolies, or the few who railed
against the evils that would come as Quebec's "Quiet Revolution"
disestablished the stranglehold the catholic church had on Quebec's
public life and culture. It seems to have little to do at all with
preserving things that are essential, such as our Constitution, or the
concept of honorable public service and respect for one's oaths.
But we are trending toward a less authoritarian culture, for the same
reasons that cars brought us more mobility and railroads made
continental civilizations possible, and what happened in Quebec will
happen on a broader scale, world wide, along the fiber networks. Less
need for authoritarian governance because more people are qualified to
be thier own authorities within their own spheres of interest and
activity and do very well without being told to do it this way or that.
This will lead in turn to more complexity, greater wealth and far
greater opportunities for individuals. At least, it will within my own
ideological framework. We shall see if it has any predictive value. And
if it does not, you may kick me in the ass for being blinded by my own
ideology.
IrishWinks
wrote:
>Norton Zenger wrote:
>
>> This is the same reason I get a little miffed at lefties who go around talking
>> about how great Hugo Chavez is just because he waves around Noam Chomsky
>> books. Yeah, face reality. He's not some kind of great dissident, he's just
>> another tinpot dictator who goes around blaming either (a) George Bush or (b)
>> the Jews for all his country's problems.
>
>Perhaps they are just pointing out how nice it would be to have a
>leader who could read. Even if he had to have the big concepts
>explained. BTW, I've never quite understood why Noam is seen as
>"liberal." But I guess it's because his observations haven't pointed
>out the idiocies of any liberal or progressive policies as of yet. In
>that regard, he's an "inconvenient truth-teller" in waiting.
He is interesting - a philosopher in his own right and his work in
linguistics furthered the field. I predict he will go down in history
as a brilliant man who possessed a true gift for pissing people off,
and he often comes across as an extremist. Socrates had the same
problem, and he was no liberal either.
>I like passing this link around - I keep it linked from my blog's
>sidebar, in my del.icio.us feed, actually. <a
>href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/</a>
>
>Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
>Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans
>show.
>
>In fact, "ignoring facts" could even qualify as a kink, because we are
>talking about direct brain reward, and if you want to understand how
>Jim Jones got people to *literally* drink the Kool-Aide, this will
>explain it to you. Direct brain reward trumps personal self-interest,
>even when you are perfectly capable of figuring out where that interest
>lies.
>
>Trust me on that one. My understanding of cult dynamics and
>meta-programming is not based in theory.
Neither is mine, but the ability to keep breathing has resulted in
learning something. I still see it (and am no doubt in it)
everywhere, everyday. A different take from a different field,
"direct brain reward trumping personal interest" is central to cutting
edge addiction treatment.
Me too. I am not sure "dense" is quite accurate, since it is a very
scary thing, and escapism (fantasy) or denial are both quick fixes to
fear. But they are not quite the same thing as true ignorance.
I'm not sure I see it quite that way, as sharing world knowledge and
resources might leave the majority of us on this group less
financially well-off. Not like that would be a bad thing, considering
the big picture, IMO, and wealth would probably be redefined. Greater
opportunities seems a sure thing, freedom defined by what you can do,
not what you can own.
Winks
*Note email addy is munged. Correct email is irish...@bresnan.net
Troia
> ...
> To me, the concept of "authority" is dependant upon having demonstrated
> an authoritative grasp of the relevant situation. It does not relate at
> all, in my mind, to being put in a position of authority, save that
> there is that duty that comes with the position. I also feel that it's
> a social duty to punish those who misrepresent themselves in order to
Um, wow. Bob, your post (almost all snipped) was incredibly
well-written and cogent.
I left just the above, which could surely be considered obBDSM as well,
if one took it to refer to Doms.
-- Troia
Dan Holzman-Tweed
>
> This is the same reason I get a little miffed at lefties who go around talking
> about how great Hugo Chavez is just because he waves around Noam Chomsky
> books. Yeah, face reality. He's not some kind of great dissident, he's just
> another tinpot dictator who goes around blaming either (a) George Bush or (b)
> the Jews for all his country's problems.
What definition of the word "dictator" are we using here? Last time I
checked, Chavez was elected
and re-elected by a multi-party democratic process. We usually reserve
the term "dictator" for
people who come to power through coups and juntas and the like.
Serion Ironcroft
> Political bias affects brain activity, study finds Democrats and
> Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show...
Some of which bias is clearly detectable in the reponses to this thread.
Nicely done, Mr. King!
Regards, Serion
Don SideB
wrote:
>Aside to DonSideB - a non-partisan observation: I note that a number of
>your assumptions *seem* to be based on the idea of "this idea is good,
>because it's to the advantage of the ruling/controlling classes," Eg,
>the promotion of social stability, ensuring that the wrong people don't
>get their hands on the "wrong" things, and can't pass themselves off as
>a member of the "right" group.
It has nothing to do with class.
The "wrong" people are those who wish to harm me, my children or
grandchildren or deny us our freedom.
The"wrong" things are the technology and wealth to carry out their
wishes.
It's not that complicated.
>No, this isn't a "liberal" argument. It's a question. *Who* determines
>who is in the correct group, and *why* should you be subject to their
>whims, even if their whims may benefit you today?
Those who seek to use force to endanger me or mine, or threaten our
freedom are the ones who chose to be in the wrong group. I would not
send an army to the middle east to force the Muslims to convert to
Christianity, they chose to make this a matter of force, not us.
The penalty for being in the wrong group is necessarily very harsh.
Bob King
On Dec 2, 1:55 pm, Troia <troia.leg...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
> Bob King wrote:
> > ...
> > To me, the concept of "authority" is dependant upon having demonstrated
> > an authoritative grasp of the relevant situation. It does not relate at
> > all, in my mind, to being put in a position of authority, save that
> > there is that duty that comes with the position. I also feel that it's
> > a social duty to punish those who misrepresent themselves in order to
> > gain power, ...Um, wow. Bob, your post (almost all snipped) was incredibly
> well-written and cogent.
>
> I left just the above, which could surely be considered obBDSM as well,
> if one took it to refer to Doms.
Oh, quite true. But then, I have come to realize that BDSM Ethics
applies rather well to any system of organized power exchange.
>
> -- Troia
Bob King
On Dec 2, 4:09 pm, Serion Ironcroft <ser...@ironcroftcaravan.org>
wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:41:49 -0800, Bob King wrote, among other things:
>
> > Political bias affects brain activity, study finds Democrats and
> > Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show...Some of which bias is clearly detectable in the reponses to this thread.
>
> Nicely done, Mr. King!
>
> Regards, Serion
why thank you. :P I do try.
Don SideB
wrote:
>These days the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are attached to the
>weirdest things. For instance, you cite Al Gore's global
>warming-influenced environmental policy as being obviously wacky. Well,
>if it is, it seems to be a wackyness that the vast majority of those
>who are genuinely qualified to evaluate the data generally agree upon.
>The globe is warming - and at a rate that is noticeable within
>disturbingly short time-frames. Anything we can do to alter that rate
>of change is worth doing up to the point where it becomes as disruptive
>to us as the alternative. Wasting time about arguing who caused it, or
>if those melting icebergs are "really" melting strikes me as being
>dense.
I don't label the "Global Warming" hysteria preached by Gore as
necessarily Liberal, just stupid.
The climate is certainly warming, it has been for 11,000 years. It has
been warming faster since the end of the "Little Ice Age" which lasted
from about 1400 to 1850. But it is not warming as fast as it did in
the lead up to the "Midlevel Warming" (about 600 AD to 1200AD) which
was warmer than even the Global Warming chicken little's predict for
the next 100 years.
There weren't many SUV's for that one. I am not convinced the current
climate change is due to human activity or that the remedies Gore
wants would change anything.
As to Gore's prediction of 20 ft rise in sea levels in 50 years,
drowning our cities, one has to ask why the sea level did not vary
more than a foot through the Midlevel Warming or the Little Ice Age?
Hyperbole is great for telling fish stories and jokes, but it should
not be a basis for global energy policy.
Bob King
On Dec 2, 10:32 am, IrishWinks <irishwi...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2006 09:41:49 -0800, "Bob King" <Graphictr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Norton Zenger wrote:
>
> >> This is the same reason I get a little miffed at lefties who go around talking
> >> about how great Hugo Chavez is just because he waves around Noam Chomsky
> >> books. Yeah, face reality. He's not some kind of great dissident, he's just
> >> another tinpot dictator who goes around blaming either (a) George Bush or (b)
> >> the Jews for all his country's problems.
>
> >Perhaps they are just pointing out how nice it would be to have a
> >leader who could read. Even if he had to have the big concepts
> >explained. BTW, I've never quite understood why Noam is seen as
> >"liberal." But I guess it's because his observations haven't pointed
> >out the idiocies of any liberal or progressive policies as of yet. In
> >that regard, he's an "inconvenient truth-teller" in waiting.He is interesting - a philosopher in his own right and his work in
> linguistics furthered the field. I predict he will go down in history
> as a brilliant man who possessed a true gift for pissing people off,
> and he often comes across as an extremist. Socrates had the same
> problem, and he was no liberal either.
>
>
>
> >I like passing this link around - I keep it linked from my blog's
> >sidebar, in my del.icio.us feed, actually. <a
> >href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/</a>
>
> >Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
> >Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans
> >show.
>
> >In fact, "ignoring facts" could even qualify as a kink, because we are
> >talking about direct brain reward, and if you want to understand how
> >Jim Jones got people to *literally* drink the Kool-Aide, this will
> >explain it to you. Direct brain reward trumps personal self-interest,
> >even when you are perfectly capable of figuring out where that interest
> >lies.
>
> >Trust me on that one. My understanding of cult dynamics and
> >meta-programming is not based in theory.Neither is mine, but the ability to keep breathing has resulted in
> learning something. I still see it (and am no doubt in it)
> everywhere, everyday. A different take from a different field,
> "direct brain reward trumping personal interest" is central to cutting
> edge addiction treatment.
>
That which doesn't kill us makes us more cynical...And yes, it does
rather explain "What's the matter with Kansas."
>
> >But we are trending toward a less authoritarian culture, for the same
> >reasons that cars brought us more mobility and railroads made
> >continental civilizations possible, and what happened in Quebec will
> >happen on a broader scale, world wide, along the fiber networks. Less
> >need for authoritarian governance because more people are qualified to
> >be thier own authorities within their own spheres of interest and
> >activity and do very well without being told to do it this way or that.
>
> >This will lead in turn to more complexity, greater wealth and far
> >greater opportunities for individuals. At least, it will within my own
> >ideological framework. We shall see if it has any predictive value. And
> >if it does not, you may kick me in the ass for being blinded by my own
> >ideology.I'm not sure I see it quite that way, as sharing world knowledge and
> resources might leave the majority of us on this group less
> financially well-off. Not like that would be a bad thing, considering
> the big picture, IMO, and wealth would probably be redefined. Greater
> opportunities seems a sure thing, freedom defined by what you can do,
> not what you can own.
>
> Winks
We have to factor in more than money to really calculate "wealth."
Practical mobility, effective personal freedoms, the ability to have
what you want when you want it, your actual access to power and ability
to wield it... all of these things can come from things other than
money, and if they do, money is less important in a relative sense.
for a thought experiment, consider the idea of having twice your
current wealth iin 1960 dollars ... in 1960. Given the choice of that,
or keeping what you have right now, which would you choose?
For me, no contest. Pink monkeys didn't do well in 1960. I know, I was
there.
IrishWinks
wrote:
>On 2 Dec 2006 09:41:49 -0800, "Bob King" <Graphi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>These days the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are attached to the
>>weirdest things. For instance, you cite Al Gore's global
>>warming-influenced environmental policy as being obviously wacky. Well,
>>if it is, it seems to be a wackyness that the vast majority of those
>>who are genuinely qualified to evaluate the data generally agree upon.
>>The globe is warming - and at a rate that is noticeable within
>>disturbingly short time-frames. Anything we can do to alter that rate
>>of change is worth doing up to the point where it becomes as disruptive
>>to us as the alternative. Wasting time about arguing who caused it, or
>>if those melting icebergs are "really" melting strikes me as being
>>dense.
>
>I don't label the "Global Warming" hysteria preached by Gore as
>necessarily Liberal, just stupid.
>
>The climate is certainly warming, it has been for 11,000 years. It has
>been warming faster since the end of the "Little Ice Age" which lasted
>from about 1400 to 1850. But it is not warming as fast as it did in
>the lead up to the "Midlevel Warming" (about 600 AD to 1200AD) which
>was warmer than even the Global Warming chicken little's predict for
>the next 100 years.
>
>There weren't many SUV's for that one. I am not convinced the current
>climate change is due to human activity or that the remedies Gore
>wants would change anything.
Take the last 4.6 billion years into it, and it does put current
warming into perspective. You don't have to be gifted to see it.
Simple math skills and a minimal grasp on physics are more than
enough.
>As to Gore's prediction of 20 ft rise in sea levels in 50 years,
>drowning our cities, one has to ask why the sea level did not vary
>more than a foot through the Midlevel Warming or the Little Ice Age?
Gosh, maybe you know something that the rest of us don't. Does water
have the innate ability to disappear? That would be shocking to all
of science, but all of science says it's not so. 4.6 billion ...
>Hyperbole is great for telling fish stories and jokes, but it should
>not be a basis for global energy policy.
Total ignorance and denial are the key to comfort. Hang on to yours
... comfort is crucial. In the meantime, those who have guts are
gonna keep hashing it out, as pointless as that may seem to you, all
cozy in your blanket. Since it's irrelevant to you anyway, surely you
have no objection to the discussion continuing without you.
David Weinshenker
> If you look beyond Bush's lip service to a "marriage amendment" he
> knows full well will never be ratified
So what are you saying? All his talk about trying to "ban Gay Marriage"
(and outlaw abortion, restrict stem cell research, etc.) has less to do
with any actual intended course of policy than with his perception that
his supporters get off on hearing him talk like that?
-dave w
IrishWinks
wrote:
>> >Trust me on that one. My understanding of cult dynamics and
>> >meta-programming is not based in theory.
>< Neither is mine, but the ability to keep breathing has resulted in
>> learning something. I still see it (and am no doubt in it)
>> everywhere, everyday. A different take from a different field,
>> "direct brain reward trumping personal interest" is central to cutting
>> edge addiction treatment.
>That which doesn't kill us makes us more cynical...And yes, it does
>rather explain "What's the matter with Kansas."
Hmm. See - what I see - is seeing reality as cynical is part of the
problem - it is denial. Reality has no heavenly stance to shoot for.
There's nothing wrong with Kansas, or Iowa either ...
>We have to factor in more than money to really calculate "wealth."
>Practical mobility, effective personal freedoms, the ability to have
>what you want when you want it, your actual access to power and ability
> to wield it... all of these things can come from things other than
>money, and if they do, money is less important in a relative sense.
YES! But keeping money important in the mind's sense is everything to
those who think that way, they have everything to gain when we think
that way. I'm not sure that there's a way out of that mire ...
Whoever wants out (making the "grade" or not) is going to have to
REALLY want out. Sedation in a myriad of forms (booze, drugs, Fox
news, sex, the sci-fi channel, the rabbit habit) makes things cozy.
The best chance for escape is merely limited by unavoidable trips to
Wal-Mart and work and television and every commercial you see and
every commercial you hear... and it goes on and on.
Good luck rescuing someone from that muck; good luck rescuing
yourself. Since it's not killing me, does it make me more cynical?
More cynical than what?
>for a thought experiment, consider the idea of having twice your
>current wealth iin 1960 dollars ... in 1960. Given the choice of that,
>or keeping what you have right now, which would you choose?
>
>For me, no contest. Pink monkeys didn't do well in 1960. I know, I was
>there.
I was born in '60 but I wouldn't go back to any time in my life. If I
was there, once was sufficient. I only regress for pleasure, and I
can only do that because I get that any pleasure in exploring back
only applies to me for the moment now. Reality, like pink monkeys, is
slippery stuff. It's not new to the human condition, and I don't
think that recognizing that makes me cynical. I think it makes me a
realist, who happens to appreciate pink monkeys and blue plushies.
Dan Holzman-Tweed
>
> Anyway, he has a history of suppressing freedom of speech and engaged in
> massive electoral fraud to stay in power
I bet you just know that, this newsgroup being what it is, the next
words out of my fingertips are going to be, "Cite, please?"
Golden California Girls
You've had a instrument thermometer going for the last 4.6 billion years? More
like about 1000 spread all over the globe? And you accounted for precession and
nutation in your data? Continental drift? Magnetic field swaps? You can tell
the difference between wet but cold years, dry but cold years, wet but hot years
and dry but hot years in your tree ring data? You are sure that the decade the
animal used the tree to mark its territory and added lots of nice urea
fertilizer isn't in your tree ring data?
The problem is that the data set is too damn limited to be something we should
draw conclusions from. We simply don't have a long enough time span of
instrumented data to know if what we are seeing is real or inside a normal
standard deviation. We've got no clue about when micro-climes form or stop on
the time scales we are attempting to measure. (Can we trust the data set?)
I've got no doubt that the tree ring data is correct. I have big doubt that we
have enough instrumented data to show that the tree ring data set is the same as
a temperature data set. I got no doubt that the ice core data set is correct.
I have big doubt that we have enough instrumented data to show that the ice core
data set is the same as a temperature data set. I have no doubt that the sea
level data set is correct. I have big doubt the sea level data set correlates
to air temperature. Just think of how the Sahara Desert has a huge under sand
river system and just what human activity changed that! (Check out the space
shuttle imaging radar data set.)
More importantly all the so called causes are tiny in comparison to what nature
itself can dish out. Just how much soot and CO2 was put up when Krakatoa went
from mountain to undersea volcano? What happened? All that CO2 and soot gave
us a winter, not a heat up!
If the weather man is only 70% correct at five days, you want me to believe a
forecast at fifty years?! You are at the height of arrogance to believe that
kind of forecast. It is no different than predicting earthquakes! It is called
pseudo science! Speaking of that how about our this year tropical storm
forecast for the Atlantic. Pretty accurate huh?
>> As to Gore's prediction of 20 ft rise in sea levels in 50 years,
>> drowning our cities, one has to ask why the sea level did not vary
>> more than a foot through the Midlevel Warming or the Little Ice Age?
>
> Gosh, maybe you know something that the rest of us don't. Does water
> have the innate ability to disappear? That would be shocking to all
> of science, but all of science says it's not so. 4.6 billion ...
>
>> Hyperbole is great for telling fish stories and jokes, but it should
>> not be a basis for global energy policy.
>
> Total ignorance and denial are the key to comfort. Hang on to yours
> ... comfort is crucial. In the meantime, those who have guts are
> gonna keep hashing it out, as pointless as that may seem to you, all
> cozy in your blanket. Since it's irrelevant to you anyway, surely you
> have no objection to the discussion continuing without you.
Want to know what is really going on? Well all those "clean air" programs are
coming back to haunt us. When we was stupid and burned fossil fuels at the
start of the industrial revolution, we put up tons of soot in addition to the CO
and CO2. Now we mandate this clean burn stuff and there isn't soot and CO going
up the smoke stack to the scrubber. What happens? No soot and it gets hot.
There you go, liberal government meddling is the cause of global warming.
<sarcasm off>
Seriously, the data set is strongly suggestive, but not conclusive. The
required corrective action, taking the USA (and Europe) back to third world
conditions, is a bit extreme. Of course if al-Qeada succeeds we won't need to
do it to ourselves. If you want to live as your do now (go to work vs. farm and
forage yourself) you are going to have to accept a nuclear power plant in your
backyard. No other viable option. Want to stop fossil fuel use, campaign for
nuclear power. Do something positive and people will follow, do negative and no
action results.
<sarcasm on>
Speaking of energy waste, did I see a statistic recently about a large fraction
of the USA population being in prison? Just who supports these non-contributing
resource units in society anyway? Perhaps they should be forced to make their
own keep and then some? Or should we even bother to cage them at all? Second
strike mandatory capital punishment? Just to be fair, defendant gets at least
three shysters, one of whom must have previous capital case experience, one with
appellate experience for any interlocutory issues, each shyster has at least
three clerks. Defendant gets at least two PI's, more if there are a lot of
witnesses. DNA testing mandatory. Defendant gets mandatory expert witnesses and
testing of whatever. Double trial system. Trial 1 is the normal procedure
counts more than guilt of innocence crap we now have. Trial 2 (different jury)
is a non procedure all evidence comes in, even the jury asks questions, focus on
guilt or innocence trial. Coin flip decides which trial goes first, both must
be guilty for a capital sentence, heard by a third jury. Mandatory appeal, must
be heard in six months. For the appeal part defendant gets three appellate
lawyers with two clerks each at least two must have prior appellate capital case
experience, PI's and experts as needed for evidence issues. Appellate court
gets 90 days from last argument to decide, sentence carried out 90 days later.
Don SideB
<gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>Speaking of energy waste, did I see a statistic recently about a large fraction
>of the USA population being in prison?
1 in 32 in prison or on parole.
Adopting the Libertarian position on drug laws would cut that by about
70%.
Don SideB
<irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote:
>>As to Gore's prediction of 20 ft rise in sea levels in 50 years,
>>drowning our cities, one has to ask why the sea level did not vary
>>more than a foot through the Midlevel Warming or the Little Ice Age?
>
>Gosh, maybe you know something that the rest of us don't. Does water
>have the innate ability to disappear? That would be shocking to all
>of science, but all of science says it's not so. 4.6 billion ...
When archeology and computer models conflict, go with the archeology.
We know the Medieval warming occurred. Romans grew grapes further up
the Alps than you can now. Norsemen raised cattle and grains in
Greenland. We know the Little Ice Age occurred, records were kept and
Washington was able to haul cannon across the frozen Hudson river
where it never freezes now.
The docks and moorings build during those times were built at the same
level you would build them now, within a foot. If Gore was correct,
the Medieval docks should be 20 feet or more up the hillsides and the
colonial docks should be under water. They still exist and they
aren't.
So, I don't have to know why they didn't happen to know Gore is wrong
about sea levels. I do know why, but even if I didn't, so what.
Don SideB
WRT gay marriage, yes. It is one of the ways he has disappointed me.
WRT abortion and embryonic stem cell research, I believe he is
sincere.
Don SideB
wrote:
>>Adopting the Libertarian position on drug laws would cut that by about
>>70%.
>
>Yeah, because drug addicts _never_ commit any other crimes.
I'm sure many do. Some would commit them even if they were not drug
addicts. But many commit crimes because of the high cost of the
addiction. Many others in order to profit by the high profit margins
that come with the risk of supplying that demand. And many are made
criminals simply because the drugs are illegal.
I am not 'pro drug' at all. I have never used illegal drugs. I have
never been drunk in my life. I have never even smoked a tobacco
cigarette. I like my consciousness just as it is. But I can't escape
the reality that what we are doing does more harm than good.
In the 1920's, heroin and cocaine were available at your local
drugstore without a prescription. They were cheap enough that there
was no need to steal to get them. There were people who became
addicted, but no higher percentage than today. We did not have prisons
full of pharmacists nor did we have pharmacists killing each other
over turf.
There were gangsters doing those things, of course, but that was over
alcohol, which unlike the drugs, was illegal.
Does a pattern emerge here?
David Weinshenker
>
> Don SideB come on down:
>
> >On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:31:52 -0800, Golden California Girls
> ><gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
> >
> >>Speaking of energy waste, did I see a statistic recently about a large fraction
> >>of the USA population being in prison?
> >
> >1 in 32 in prison or on parole.
> >
> >Adopting the Libertarian position on drug laws would cut that by about
> >70%.
>
Even if other crimes stayed the same and were prosecuted
at the same rate, the elimination of prosecutions for acts
that only involved drugs would reduce the total amount of
crimes to be prosecuted and thus, eventually, the total
prison/parole population. However, much of other "crime
committed by drug addicts" might also be reduced: robberies,
turf wars, etc.... there could very well be something of a
"leverage effect" there.
-dave w
Don SideB
wrote:
>>I don't label the "Global Warming" hysteria preached by Gore as
>>necessarily Liberal, just stupid.
>>
>>The climate is certainly warming, it has been for 11,000 years.
>
>No offense, but if it comes down between pretty much the entire scientific
>community and a dentist, I'm going to have to go with the former.
Even when archeology clearly shows that the predictions of the
scientists (read grant whores) are exaggerated?
Troia
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:33:07 GMT, rusho...@gmail.com (Norton Zenger)
> wrote:
>
>>> I don't label the "Global Warming" hysteria preached by Gore as
>>> necessarily Liberal, just stupid.
>>>
>>> The climate is certainly warming, it has been for 11,000 years.
>> No offense, but if it comes down between pretty much the entire scientific
>> community and a dentist, I'm going to have to go with the former.
>
> Even when archeology clearly shows that the predictions of the
> scientists (read grant whores) are exaggerated?
Ah, yes, that's it: The scientists are all in it for the big bucks and
fame!
After all, they get to live high and wild on those grant dollars, right?
And everyone knows just how celebrated they are after they've published
a research paper or two in some obscure peer-reviewed journal.
"Grant whores", ready to sell out their opinions for the quickest dollar
to fund their pet research program: yes, that would describe not merely
the typical scientist to a "t", but all of them -- especially those
immoral self-serving atmospheric scientists with the laughably
"exaggerated" predictions.
-- Troia
(wondering just how much stupider and further-from-reality Don's
arguments can get)
Bob King
> On 2 Dec 2006 09:41:49 -0800, "Bob King" <Graphi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Aside to DonSideB - a non-partisan observation: I note that a number of
> >your assumptions *seem* to be based on the idea of "this idea is good,
> >because it's to the advantage of the ruling/controlling classes," Eg,
> >the promotion of social stability, ensuring that the wrong people don't
> >get their hands on the "wrong" things, and can't pass themselves off as
> >a member of the "right" group.
>
> It has nothing to do with class.
>
> The "wrong" people are those who wish to harm me, my children or
> grandchildren or deny us our freedom.
So, you'd be including Alberto Gonzalez in that pile?
Oh, and remember, conditional freedom is not liberty. If there is a
list that you have to be on, or not on, if there's any version of a
"naughty" or "nice" list that is NOT based on actual due process and
conviction, you are not free. You are free until someone determines
that for some unknown reason that - say - men with certain kinks or
political orientations are best kept restricted in some way.
> The"wrong" things are the technology and wealth to carry out their
> wishes.
I'm afraid that includes THIS object - that which we each use as an
Internet interface is smarter than an ICBM guidance computer of five or
ten years ago. Assuming they have felt the need to upgrade. As a
"thought experement" I've established (for my own satisfaction) that it
would be both simple and relatively inexpensive to build any number of
cheap weapons of reasonably massive destruction using nothing other
than junkyard scrap, the things forgotten under my sink and a couple of
trips to a hardware store.
If you have ever watched "junkyard wars" or "Mythbusters", you realize
that rocket science is no longer "rocket science" - it's merely applied
engineering. If you don't CARE about "pretty" and are willing to play
the odds a bit, you too can have a Katusha-type multiple rocket
launcher capable of reaching out and touching quite a lot of someones a
mile or so away.
> It's not that complicated.
Yep. It's not that complicated. As the ability, knowledge, resources
and wealth are widely available, from the Coast of Ivory to Canada, the
issue becomes, how do we avoid being seen as a target of high enough
value that people are willing to spend the rest of their lives in a
quest to harm us and frustrate our ambitions?
The answer isn't complicated. It simply amounts to "Do what ye will,
and harm none." Or if you prefer, "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you," but I prefer the first - it's got more elbow room,
but less wiggle room.
> >No, this isn't a "liberal" argument. It's a question. *Who* determines
> >who is in the correct group, and *why* should you be subject to their
> >whims, even if their whims may benefit you today?
>
> Those who seek to use force to endanger me or mine, or threaten our
> freedom are the ones who chose to be in the wrong group. I would not
> send an army to the middle east to force the Muslims to convert to
> Christianity, they chose to make this a matter of force, not us.
>
> The penalty for being in the wrong group is necessarily very harsh.
I repeat, WHO do you trust to determine on your behalf who is "us" and
who is "them." I should add that it's quite probable that a fair number
of people here are on various versions of "them" lists. I've spent the
last four years verbally crotch kicking the Bush administration, so I'm
pretty sure I'm on that list. I'll state for the record - under oath,
if you like - that based on my current understanding of "you and yours"
I'm no threat to anything other than your perceptions of reality and
understanding of security.
The question is, is that threat enough? It certainly is if you consider
the blatantly unconstitutional ploys the bushites have taken, and the
preparations they have made for various contingencies.
You see, your approach to safety and security depends upon a hierarchy
of competent, well-informed and extremely well-trained authorities
capable of acting decisively and effectively in a broad range of
potential threat situations, while never failing to protect and defend
the rights and liberties of their citizens.
This is a very high standard - with an inevitablally harsh penalty for
failure to protect the right group.
Personally, I believe strongly that the people of the Gulf Cost had
been assured (via our constitution, voting rights, citizenship) that
they WERE in the right group.
Seems to me that the aftermath of a hurricane that wasn't properly
prepared for despite ample warning and widespread (but unemployed)
expertise establishes that there's no rational basis for assuming that
the authorities you rely on have anything to offer but fear and
xenophobic slogans.
Me, I shall rely upon my own intelligence gathering capabilities and my
own ability to add two and two to venture the idea that violent, random
and misdirected tantrums are not the best way to achieve justice for
the victims of the World Trade Center.
Oh, I totally agree with "walk softly and carry a big stick;" all the
more now that we've seen the results when our policy has been the
complete opposite.
Bob King
>
> Speaking of energy waste, did I see a statistic recently about a large fraction
> of the USA population being in prison? Just who supports these non-contributing
> resource units in society anyway? Perhaps they should be forced to make their
> own keep and then some? Or should we even bother to cage them at all? Second
> strike mandatory capital punishment? Just to be fair, defendant gets at least
> three shysters, one of whom must have previous capital case experience, one with
> appellate experience for any interlocutory issues, each shyster has at least
> three clerks. Defendant gets at least two PI's, more if there are a lot of
> witnesses. DNA testing mandatory. Defendant gets mandatory expert witnesses and
> testing of whatever. Double trial system. Trial 1 is the normal procedure
> counts more than guilt of innocence crap we now have. Trial 2 (different jury)
> is a non procedure all evidence comes in, even the jury asks questions, focus on
> guilt or innocence trial. Coin flip decides which trial goes first, both must
> be guilty for a capital sentence, heard by a third jury. Mandatory appeal, must
> be heard in six months. For the appeal part defendant gets three appellate
> lawyers with two clerks each at least two must have prior appellate capital case
> experience, PI's and experts as needed for evidence issues. Appellate court
> gets 90 days from last argument to decide, sentence carried out 90 days later.
I like this, oddly enough.
Of course the other statistic is the number of people in prison for
drug-related crime. I believe you know the libertarian answer to that
one. The only thing worse than paying for someone else's mistakes is
paying even more to keep them from making them.
Bob King
> required corrective action, taking the USA (and Europe) back to third world
> conditions, is a bit extreme. Of course if al-Qeada succeeds we won't need to
> do it to ourselves. If you want to live as your do now (go to work vs. farm and
> forage yourself) you are going to have to accept a nuclear power plant in your
> backyard. No other viable option. Want to stop fossil fuel use, campaign for
> nuclear power. Do something positive and people will follow, do negative and no
I"m not sure what you mean by "third world conditions." Third world
conditions are energy-inefficent, even if they use less energy
per-capita. What we need is a lot of cheap energy with low
envrionmental impact - and ideally, some positive benefit. Nuclear
energy isn't a long-term solution, but it's a good start. Work on
nuclear waste recycling may make it more efficient. But we really need
to crack the fusion problem.
And there are a lot of very pure and green solutions that make a lot of
economic sense too, especially factored into co2 emissions markets.
Feeding algae with stack gasses in order to produce biofuels as a
welcome byproduct is an already well-advanced technology, one that is
widely applicable once the basic science and engineering is done.
Meanwhile - we should be building solar space arrays. But that will
take billions and billions, as well as the concentration of every
space-capable power to achieve. Well worth doing though, for thousands
of reasons - but probably most importantly as a planetary frontier.
Far more useful than wars to control diminishing oil reserves and use
up the restless and disaffected.
Oh, and then there's that megavolcano in yellowstone that had BETTER be
examined as an energy resource - with an eye toward keeping it from
boiling over! A volcano with a caldera bigger than vermont strikes me
as something that should be on our national threat radar.
M. Shirley Chong
> Even when archeology clearly shows that the predictions of the
> scientists (read grant whores) are exaggerated?
I'll be sure to let my brother, the grant whore, know that he should
be ashamed of himself. How dare he discover some of the genes for
cystic fibrosis? How dare he come up with a new (and better) test
for cystic fibrosis? How dare he work on a drug for multiple
sclerosis that not only checks the progression but actually
*reverses* some of the deterioration?
Gee, how dare my brother do something so unethical and rottenhearted
as to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Of course, such things would never affect *your* family and so you
would never profit directly or indirectly from the work of a grant
whore. Or from the work of the other grant whores out there.
Meesoon Shirley Chong
Kristal
rusho...@gmail.com says...
> Dan Holzman-Tweed come on down:
If you are going to list an internet site give a complete internet
address, please. A cite should provide sufficient information needed to
verify the source.
Kristal
Steve Pope
>I"m not sure what you mean by "third world conditions." Third world
>conditions are energy-inefficent, even if they use less energy
>per-capita. What we need is a lot of cheap energy with low
>envrionmental impact - and ideally, some positive benefit. Nuclear
>energy isn't a long-term solution, but it's a good start. Work on
>nuclear waste recycling may make it more efficient. But we really need
>to crack the fusion problem.
In my opinion, this last sentence is perpetuating a myth. There is
nothing wrong with fission power; fusion has no overall advantages.
Indeed, in some respects it is not as clean as fission.
The vast funds required by fusion research which may never pan out
would be better spent on making safe nuclear power plants using
known technology.
Steve
Dan Holzman-Tweed
> Dan Holzman-Tweed come on down:
>
That would appear to be a novel way of saying, "No, I don't have a cite."
The first words in the Wikipedia article are, "The neutrality of this
article is disputed."
On the topic of election fraud, the article says this:
The election was overseen by the Carter Center and the Organization of
American States, and was certified by them as fair and open.[56]
European Union observers did not attend, saying too many restrictions
had been placed on their participation by the government.[57]
Other critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and
Roberto Rigobon of MIT, called the results fraudulent, alleging a "very
clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and alleged electronic
voting machines had been reconfigured to allow results to be altered
remotely.[58] In response, the Carter Center consulted with Professor
Jonathan Taylor, an independent statistician from Stanford University
and Professor Aviel Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer scientist
who both initially concluded that the actual results are within the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
predicted range and do not of themselves prove fraud.[59] Subsequently,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
however, the Carter Center admitted Taylor had "found a mistake in one
of the models of his analysis which lowered the predicted number of tied
machines, but which still found the actual result to lie within
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
statistical possibility"[60]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On the topic of suppression of free speech, the Wikipedia article is silent.
Do you have a real cite?
Dan Holzman-Tweed
> Dan Holzman-Tweed come on down:
> it's not going to happen.
Actually, I was hoping for some objective position on an accusation of
"massive election fraud," but it doesn't seem that that's going to
happen, either.
>> On the topic of election fraud, the article says this:
>>
>> The election was overseen by the Carter Center and the Organization of
>> American States, and was certified by them as fair and open.[56]
>> European Union observers did not attend, saying too many restrictions
>> had been placed on their participation by the government.[57]
>>
>> Other critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and
>> Roberto Rigobon of MIT, called the results fraudulent, alleging a "very
>> clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and alleged electronic
>> voting machines had been reconfigured to allow results to be altered
>> remotely.[58] In response, the Carter Center consulted with Professor
>> Jonathan Taylor, an independent statistician from Stanford University
>> and Professor Aviel Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer scientist
>> who both initially concluded that the actual results are within the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> predicted range and do not of themselves prove fraud.[59] Subsequently,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> however, the Carter Center admitted Taylor had "found a mistake in one
>> of the models of his analysis which lowered the predicted number of tied
>> machines, but which still found the actual result to lie within
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> statistical possibility"[60]
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> So the Carter Center doesn't think it's fraud (or rather, the Carter Center
> believes it's STATISTICALLY POSSIBLE that the election wasn't fraudulent), and
> lots of other people do.
So far, "lots of other people" appear to be two economists asserting
it's not statistically possible for the election to have been honest --
as differentiated sharply from, oh I don't know, /actual evidence of
fraud/. You know... things like discarded ballots, voter rolls with
dead people on them as having voted, voting machines that say DIEBOLD on
the side... anything?
You also don't understand statistics as a field if you don't recognize
that "it's STATISTICALLY POSSIBLE" is the strongest statement any
statistician ever makes in any statistic analysis.
Yet, somehow, you want me to take this refuted statistical analysis more
seriously than the actual election observation undertaken by the Carter
Center? Come one -- you've got to bring /something/ real to the table.
> Not only that, the Carter Center's original analysis was, by their own admission, flawed.
And yet, even when corrected the Carter Center's refutation of Hausmann
and Rigobon stands.
> You're not exactly convincing me that this was a fair and open election here.
I'm not trying to convince you that it was, you're trying to convince me
that it wasn't -- because you leveled the accusation that it wasn't.
I'm simply pointing out that you haven't provided evidence that supports
your accusation. If you can actually provide some sort of real
evidence, I'm quite prepared to believe you.
>> On the topic of suppression of free speech, the Wikipedia article is silent.
>
> Unless you consider putting your critics on trial for treason, like Chavez did
> witih Sumate, an abrogation of freedom of speech, that is.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BAmate),
Sumate is charged with treason for "receiving financial support for
their activities from the [AMerican-backed National Endowment for
Democracy]. In the U.S., the charge would not be treason, but it's not
legal here for foreign entities to contribute to certain political
entities. If the charges are trumped up, you can make a case that it's
suppression of free speech. Of course, there's also the question of
whether or not Sumate was involved in the 2002 coup attempt -- a
question to which I don't have the answer, but if so I don't see how a
charge of treason would be out of order.
> Unless you
> consider the so-called "Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and
> Television".
Discussed in detail at
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/medialaw.htm. Unless you wish
to characterize the laws regulating what is broadcast when children are
expected to be watching in Argentina, Spain, Colombia, France, Chile,
the US, and Canada as well, this is a scarecrow. If you do wish to make
such a characterization, you've still got to explain why you're singling
out Venezuela for criticism on the point.
Ruth Lawrence
"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:ekvhip$9v0$1...@blue.rahul.net...
Fissioning thorium is likely better than either above alternative.
Ruth 'there are thousands of alternatives' Lawrence
Golden California Girls
>> Seriously, the data set is strongly suggestive, but not conclusive. The
>> required corrective action, taking the USA (and Europe) back to third world
>> conditions, is a bit extreme. Of course if al-Qeada succeeds we won't need to
>> do it to ourselves. If you want to live as your do now (go to work vs. farm and
>> forage yourself) you are going to have to accept a nuclear power plant in your
>> backyard. No other viable option. Want to stop fossil fuel use, campaign for
>> nuclear power. Do something positive and people will follow, do negative and no
>> action results. .
>
> I"m not sure what you mean by "third world conditions." Third world
> conditions are energy-inefficent, even if they use less energy
> per-capita.
If I understand what Gore is talking about, he is talking about the complete
withdrawal of oil as an energy source globally in a year or two time span or the
planet burns up. [Sounds that way from his chicken little screeching anyway.]
What keeps us from being third world countries is because we have systems from
getting products from point A to point B. In most places that is roads and big
rig trucks. The same system gets workers from suburbs to factories or office
buildings and gets shoppers to stores to by the products. Transportation is why
we are a first world country.
Without a distribution system for products we would become just like the rest of
the third world. 90% of our surviving population, you do realize 2/3 of us
wouldn't be around after the change, would be reduced to subsistence farming.
Science and tech would end. We would re-enter the dark ages. Surly you know
that "would you like fries with that" isn't going to keep the economy afloat;
especially when the fries can't get from the farm to the factory to the fast
food outlet!
Replacing roads and big rig trucks with anything else is a multi decade long
project that would burn ten times any potential greenhouse gas cuts that
building it could save! So if we are stuck with roads and trucks then some sort
of electric power is the only option besides oil. That either means hydrogen
fuel or chemical batteries. [To make hydrogen pass electricity through water!]
To make electricity you burn oil, natural gas, coal all green house gas makers
or you split atoms.
You'll counter with wind, solar and geothermal. Since wind farms kill birds we
can't build those and the wind doesn't blow hard enough in enough spots anyway.
Solar and geothermal, read on.
>What we need is a lot of cheap energy with low
> envrionmental impact - and ideally, some positive benefit. Nuclear
> energy isn't a long-term solution, but it's a good start. Work on
> nuclear waste recycling may make it more efficient. But we really need
> to crack the fusion problem.
Nuclear energy is the only long-term solution. There simply isn't enough of
anything else available, unless of course you want to kill off a large fraction
of the world population of humans. That is another solution by the way.
> And there are a lot of very pure and green solutions that make a lot of
> economic sense too, especially factored into co2 emissions markets.
> Feeding algae with stack gasses in order to produce biofuels as a
> welcome byproduct is an already well-advanced technology, one that is
> widely applicable once the basic science and engineering is done.
What fraction of the total world energy consumption can this provide? How many
existing stacks are convertible to this tech? Remember if it costs more energy
to convert than what you get back ...
> Meanwhile - we should be building solar space arrays. But that will
> take billions and billions, as well as the concentration of every
> space-capable power to achieve. Well worth doing though, for thousands
> of reasons - but probably most importantly as a planetary frontier.
You are aware that it requires more energy to make a solar cell than that solar
cell produces in its lifetime? And you are going to put it atop billions of
greenhouse gas rockets that rip holes in the ozone layer!!
SCE's demonstration solar plant near Barstow CA did turn a profit. It wasn't
viable because it did close sooner than expected, the liquid sodium loop was a
bit more corrosive than expected, and it never made the power cheaper than it
could be obtained by other methods. Not saying large scale solar can't be done,
but we are a couple of decades away at least. Also are there enough places
where the sun shines 300+ full days a year? I don't think transmissions lines
from the Sahara Desert count.
Some people talk about space mirrors. Assuming the energy needed to heft the
mirror isn't more that you can get back ... I'm just wondering what the hell it
will do the to weather to have a hot column of air from the mirror's solar
energy. Will that spawn violent weather? Not sure this one is such a smart
idea, never mind when - not if - the space mirror pointing system goes on the fritz.
> Far more useful than wars to control diminishing oil reserves and use
> up the restless and disaffected.
>
> Oh, and then there's that megavolcano in yellowstone that had BETTER be
> examined as an energy resource - with an eye toward keeping it from
> boiling over! A volcano with a caldera bigger than vermont strikes me
> as something that should be on our national threat radar.
We have a lot of geothermal power plants. They all have one problem in common.
The pipes corrode so fast they don't make money absent tax credits. Now maybe
someone will come up with some sort of ceramic that is flexible enough to make
pipes out of. Then long term geothermal might make sense. Right now nuclear
energy is cheaper.
As for the big hot spot, in a lot of places where we tap, things get more
unpredictable. I don't know if cooling the rock above to make a plug like in
the lid of a pressure cooker is such a good idea. Might make the eruption a lot
bigger when it happens. Besides, do you really want to see Old Faithful going
into a pipe?
This post is intended to make everyone think before acting. There is a lot more
going on in the system than just burning oil. It is fully as complex as Laffer
curves are to economic theory. Anything less than a double thickness phone book
study should be dismissed as uninformed drivel - including this post. In any
case if you are going to propose solutions to a problem that may not exist you
damn well better know the solution isn't worse than the problem. [Should be
somebodies law!]
David Weinshenker
> You'll counter with wind, solar and geothermal. Since wind farms kill birds we
> can't build those and the wind doesn't blow hard enough in enough spots anyway.
"Can't build those" is an overstatement: "should be careful in locating them
to avoid bird impacts" is more like it. There tend to be specific high-risk
locations - such as just upwind of ridgelines where the birds particularly
prefer to glide - so you don't put your turbines at those particular spots
on the site, and the bird collision issue is much reduced.
-dave w
Don SideB
<eit...@netins.net> wrote:
>Don SideB wrote:
>
>> Even when archeology clearly shows that the predictions of the
>> scientists (read grant whores) are exaggerated?
>
>I'll be sure to let my brother, the grant whore, know that he should
>be ashamed of himself. How dare he discover some of the genes for
>cystic fibrosis? How dare he come up with a new (and better) test
>for cystic fibrosis? How dare he work on a drug for multiple
>sclerosis that not only checks the progression but actually
>*reverses* some of the deterioration?
Context, dear, context.
The grant whores I refer to are specifically those chicken little
climatologists who distort and exaggerate the climate change science
in order to bring a sense of emergency to giving them money.
For your brother to fall into that category, he would have to be on
Oprah warning us that cystic fibrosis was about to become contagious
and kill all our children if we did not pump massive funds into his
research.
What he is doing sounds worthwhile and honest, but of huge importance
to only to those affected by the disease, and of lesser, but still
worthwhile, importance to the rest of us who MIGHT have a child or
grandchild affected by it in the future. Your brother is not lying
about his research to frighten people.
You should know by now that I am not 'anti-science' but I am anti
fraud in science.
Don SideB
There are lots of alternatives that *could* help, but are blocked by a
combination of environmental extremism and NIMBY masquerading as
environmentalism.
WRT to wind power, I would guess it is 90/10 NIMBY.
fnordikins
Discordia.
Don SideB
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Fissioning thorium is likely better than either above alternative.
I know Thorium is used in some nuclear weapons, but I was unaware it
had potential us a large scale energy source. Can you point me to
information on that?
What are the advantages over Uranium fission?
David Weinshenker
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:32:49 +1100, "Ruth Lawrence"
> <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Fissioning thorium is likely better than either above alternative.
>
> I know Thorium is used in some nuclear weapons, but I was unaware it
> had potential us a large scale energy source. Can you point me to
> information on that?
>
> What are the advantages over Uranium fission?
Th-232 will absorb neutrons and form the fissile U-233 (just as
U-238 can form Pu-239 in a similar way). U-233 has a relatively
high neutron efficiency - there is a high probability that a
neutron capture will result in a fission - even for "thermal"
(slow) neutrons. It may be feasible to build a moderated reactor
with U-233 that will act as a "breeder" - i.e., the production
of new U-233 from neutron capture by the thorium will exceed
the rate at which U-233 atoms are consumed in the fission process.
Getting a rich enough "neutron surplus" for a Pu-239 reactor
to be able to break even as a "breeder" requires running it
as a "fast neutron" rather than a moderated reactor - tends
to require difficult design features such as liquid sodium
for cooling, to be harder to stabilize the power level, etc. -
while a Th-232/U-233 breeder cycle may be able to use a
conventional "pressurized water" reactor. (I believe India
is exploring this fuel cycle for their reactors.)
-dave w
IrishWinks
dissipated on the line, when that line has a resistance of 2 ohms and
a current of 80 A in it.
Finals suck.
Winks
*Note email addy is munged. Correct email is irish...@bresnan.net
Don SideB
<gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>This post is intended to make everyone think before acting. There is a lot more
>going on in the system than just burning oil. It is fully as complex as Laffer
>curves are to economic theory. Anything less than a double thickness phone book
>study should be dismissed as uninformed drivel - including this post. In any
>case if you are going to propose solutions to a problem that may not exist you
>damn well better know the solution isn't worse than the problem. [Should be
>somebodies law!]
A big part of the problem is that whatever truth might be buried in
this stinking pile is hidden by the mountain of crap heaped on top of
it by the alarmists.
Some things to consider:
Some warming is occurring, and at most, some small portion of it MIGHT
be under our control.
We MIGHT be able to reduce our contribution to that warming if ALL
nations participate, but that is not on the table. China and India are
not covered by Kyoto, nor are 'slash and burn farmers' in the third
world. We may produce more CO2 per capita, but those sources exceed
our production as a whole.
Even if they did get on board, it is likely the human cost of slowing
the warming trend would far exceed accepting it and adapting to it.
HOWEVER, some things are blatantly untrue:
The sea level is not going to rise 20 feet in 50 years as Gore claims.
Even if the temperature rise was triple what the Kyoto supporters
claim, it would take centuries to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Remember that it was warmer in the Medieval warming than Kyoto
predicts, and was so for 600 years, without an appreciable rise in sea
level.
We are not on the verge of some temperature "tipping point" where
melting permafrost releases methane and drives the greenhouse effect
to Venus like conditions. If that was going to happen, it would have
happened in the Medieval warming, and it didn't.
Real science on the topic is possible, but only if conducted in the
absence of the hype and alarmism. So long as any climatologist who
dares to assert a contrary view is targeted for dismissal, as happened
to Dr. Gray of the hurricane center, no real reasoned debate is
possible.
After all, Gore has declared that the debate on global warming is
over. Science cannot advance in that environment.
Golden California Girls
Just the exact spot where they need to be located because that is where the wind
is strongest. Don't ya just love it when a plan comes together.
David Weinshenker
Voltage developed in the resistance will be 2 ohms * 80 amps = 160 volts.
Power dissipated in the resistance will be 80 amps * 160 volts = 12800
watts (12.8 kW).
-dave w
IrishWinks
<daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Voltage developed in the resistance will be 2 ohms * 80 amps = 160 volts.
>Power dissipated in the resistance will be 80 amps * 160 volts = 12800
>watts (12.8 kW).
My sincere gratitude to you, Dave. Thanks.
David Weinshenker
>
> Don SideB come on down:
>
> >After all, Gore has declared that the debate on global warming is
> >over. Science cannot advance in that environment.
>
> yes. The debate _is_ over. Apparently you would rather spend the next fifty
> years arguing the fine points of what is scientifically extremely likely
> rather than attempting to actually do something about it. The only problem
> there is that by that time it'll be too late to do anything about it. But
> hey, fuck it, most of us will be dead by then, right? Who cares if we're
> running smack dab into the middle of a global version of New Orleans?
Somehow predictions of "massive worldwide flooding" or "collapse
of industrial civilization to hunter-gatherer conditions resulting
from abandoning combustion-based energy sources in the absence of
adequate alternatives" both strike me as alarmist straw-man arguments.
There does appear to be a current warming trend; whether this is an
accelerating secular phenomenon due specifically to CO2 produced by
human activity, or whether long-term historical fluctuations are the
dominant factor, is less clear. Are we "starting to melt the planet",
or just on the trailing side of a centuries-long cold spell?
As for alternate energy, it's probably a good idea in any case, for
purposes of international political leverage... for example, if we
could reduce our "civilizationally obligate" petroleum consumption
to the point where we could credibly threaten the Arabs with a
boycott...
-dave w
Don SideB
wrote:
>Don SideB come on down:
>
>>After all, Gore has declared that the debate on global warming is
>>over. Science cannot advance in that environment.
>
>When the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees on a theory,
>yes. The debate _is_ over. Apparently you would rather spend the next fifty
>years arguing the fine points of what is scientifically extremely likely
>rather than attempting to actually do something about it. The only problem
>there is that by that time it'll be too late to do anything about it. But
>hey, fuck it, most of us will be dead by then, right? Who cares if we're
>running smack dab into the middle of a global version of New Orleans?
Do you even read posts before replying to them?
There isn't enough time in my day to give you a list of all the times
in history the overwhelming majority of scientists have agreed on
something that was totally wrong.
However, unless you can provide some reason to believe that there is a
danger of a significant rise in sea level in the current warming when
it did not happen in a much greater warming that lasted 600 years in
the Medieval warming, I would consider this debate pretty much over.
If you can't explain that away, you have nothing to say.
Markem
<irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote:
>Perhaps one of you Einstein's could tell me how to figure the wattage
>dissipated on the line, when that line has a resistance of 2 ohms and
>a current of 80 A in it.
>
>Finals suck.
The answers are found in Ohm's law and in Watt's work. P = E x I and
E = I x R. P being watts, E Voltage, I amps and R resistance. But you
have to show your work.
::getting riding crop::
Markem
(sixoneeight) = 618
Kristal
rusho...@gmail.com says...
> The neutrality of _every_ article related to politics is disputed (as well as,
> for good measure, the neutrality of some articles relating to Batman). You
> want me to find some kind of objective position on political matters? Because
> it's not going to happen.
No. NPOV has a specific use in wikipedia.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
Here is an article on politics in Wikipedia which does not have an
NPOV tag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
Kristal
Steve Pope
>On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:32:49 +1100, "Ruth Lawrence"
>>Fissioning thorium is likely better than either above alternative.
>I know Thorium is used in some nuclear weapons, but I was unaware it
>had potential us a large scale energy source. Can you point me to
>information on that?
>What are the advantages over Uranium fission?
It doesn't itself fission, but as Dave described it can be
bred into fissionable U233. India plans to do this. See the Wikipedia
entry for U233 for details.
Steve
Don SideB
wrote:
>>However, unless you can provide some reason to believe that there is a
>>danger of a significant rise in sea level in the current warming when
>>it did not happen in a much greater warming that lasted 600 years in
>>the Medieval warming, I would consider this debate pretty much over.
>
>Don't be ridiculous. There's no way I can explain that to you, because I'm
>_not a climate scientist_, and thus I am ill-equipped to argue the finer
>points of climate science on Usenet. My position on this issue is not based
>on first-hand empirical knowledge by any means, and unlike some people, I'm
>not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject simply because I'm armed
>with a set of talking points from whatever my favorite think tank is. Rather,
>my position is based on the belief that people who have dedicated their lives
>to studying the climate know more about the issue than I do, and thus I choose
>to trust them. I mean, if you're unconvinced by the scientific method, sure,
>that's your personal choice, but I don't see the point in endorsing the
>scientific method only when it produces results that agree with your personal
>viewpoint.
So, your idea of the scientific method is to defer to expert opinion
even when it conflicts with observable reality? Heaven forbid we
should independently question authority clear evidence we can examine
ourselves. You sound like a character out of The Fountainhead.
The Medieval Warming is literally written in stone. It happened. The
sea level did not rise. I have not heard any actual scientist dispute
that, though Gore and his ilk smoothly ignore facing the issue.
To be fair, I have not heard the global warming advocates among
climatologists actually make the sea level claims Gore attributes to
them, but nor have I heard any of them step forward to correct the
claim.
So long as the climatologists allow hyperbole of the environmental
zealots to be advanced in their name, they are as guilty as Gore of
politicizing science.
One thing you can be sure of simply by studying a bit of history is
that statements like "the debate is over" and "all reputable
scientists agree" come right before burning books.
"Yet it moves."
Barbie Kleevage
>> What he is doing sounds worthwhile and honest, but of huge importance
>> to only to those affected by the disease, and of lesser, but still
>> worthwhile, importance to the rest of us who MIGHT have a child or
>> grandchild affected by it in the future. Your brother is not lying
>> about his research to frighten people.
>> You should know by now that I am not 'anti-science' but I am anti
>> fraud in science.
>
> So "grant whores" are the people who do science you don't personally agree
> with.
>
> Gotcha.
Also remember, Don owns (part of?) an oil well. He's not *exactly*
unbiased when it comes to the discussion.
b
Don SideB
<barbie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Also remember, Don owns (part of?) an oil well. He's not *exactly*
>unbiased when it comes to the discussion.
Part of, it produces just about enough income to offset what I spend
on fuel.
Not exactly enough to buy me.
But I AM biased.
I want my children and grandchildren to have a better standard of
living than those currently living in Bangladesh.
Following Gore's prescription for the environment would dash those
hopes.
All hail Discordia
wrote:
>You are all wrong. Grant whores are those who are sluts for All Hail
>Discordia.
Exactly
--
Grant
Alcore
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Don SideB wrote:
[snip]
> But I AM biased.
>
> I want my children and grandchildren to have a better standard of
> living than those currently living in Bangladesh.
>
> Following Gore's prescription for the environment would dash those
> hopes.
My dad (who spent most of his career working for and oil and gas
exploration and support company) often made similar remarks... especially
in the later years as the scientific evidence of climate change began to
pile up. (Prior to that he simply denied it could happen.)
To refuse to act responsibly simply to preserve the comfort of your
immediate children and grandchildren is insane. It's insane because
history is pretty clear that you can't be sure it will be *your*
grandchildren that will make it when more than 2/3rds wind up culled.
We can, as a species, put the welfare of the entire planet ahead of most
petty disagreements (like socioeconomic apportionment of wealth), or we
can be certain that the "tradgedy of the commons" will destroy our world.
"The tradgedy of the commons" is a historically valid pattern of human
growth and develompment that has repeated time and again with every human
resource. As our technology has improved it's scale has become global.
Basically is goes like this: Whenever a common resource is both limited
in quantity and available without cost (or at cost below it's real value),
the resource will be consumed to exhaustion in preference to using a more
expensive one that is managed for sustainable yeild. This limits the
viability or prevents the development of the sustainable one and as a
result there is a crash and disaster when the common resource is exhausted
before the sustainable one can be developed to handle the demand/need.
This pattern is occurring in fossil fuels now. The correct price for oil
per barrel *should* reflect the cost needed to develop a sustainable
replacement... but it does not.
Similarly, we are seeing *huge* levels of oceanic overfishing (seriously
degrading the planet's marine ecosystems).
We've even got a resurgence of whaling! (After pushing whales of nearly
every sort to the brink of extinction!)
Our environment, in general is the same. Industry and consumers do not
pay the appropriate cost to remediate the changes in atmospheric chemistry
that are being caused by our activities.
If we do not address this problem we will experience the tradgedy of the
commons on a global scale. The reason it's a tradgedy is that when the
commons is inevitably exhausted and can no longer replenish itself,
starvation and death occur. The survivors are demonstrably fewer in
number and poorer than the number that could have been sustained
indefinitely at a good standard of living if the resource hadn't been
overused to exhaustion.
All Al Gore is pointing out is that we can manage our planet and support
the people we have...
Or we can let our planetary environment collapse and support only a
fraction of the people at a desperately precarious level once the planet
starts changing rapidly.
I prefer my grandchildren to be able to play outdoors without us needing
to move North to Canada or South to Antarctica to avoid
super-tropical heat.
Gene P.
Slidell LA
Bob King
On Dec 4, 8:43 am, Don SideB <donsi...@aol.com> wrote:
> There isn't enough time in my day to give you a list of all the times
> in history the overwhelming majority of scientists have agreed on
> something that was totally wrong.
Indeed. However, I'll take those odds, because the likelihood of all of
them being wrong due to some form of ideological bias or blind spot is
much less than the likelihood of YOU being wrong for the same reasons.
Absent the ability to do the sort of in-depth examination of the facts
that would qualify me to have what I consider to be an informed
opinion, of course.
> However, unless you can provide some reason to believe that there is a
> danger of a significant rise in sea level in the current warming when
> it did not happen in a much greater warming that lasted 600 years in
> the Medieval warming, I would consider this debate pretty much over.
As I understand it, climate change models all predict localized
counter-trends. Was the Medieval Warming worldwide? And another
question - are we comparing apples to apples. Do we know what caused
it.?
Oh, I've got a third reason for going with the science. I call it the
Millennium Bug Theorem. You see, global warming has been something
that's been suggested by science as a concern since the mid seventies.
But as long as it was a concern of scientists, it was ignored or
dismissed by anyone able to do anything about it.
That's how the millenium bug got fixed - a lot of people screaming that
the sky was about to fall, and suddenly money fell from the sky. As a
result, what could have been at least a very significant inconvenience,
if not an outright disaster was averted.
When it became a popular issue, we get traction. Maybe it will turn out
to be a "non problem" as you suggest. But just because it does not, it
does not follow that we were not one butterfly away from a cascade
failure.
Climate is NOT a liniar system, it is chaotic, and there may be things
in play now that were not in play during the Midaeval Warming - for
instance, the weakening of the geomagnetic field, with spots of
near-absence. I dounno what data we have on magnetic field strength
during that time, and I dunno if anyone has put it together with
climate data. And that's simply one factor we know about.
Bob King
> nothing wrong with fission power; fusion has no overall advantages.
> Indeed, in some respects it is not as clean as fission.
> The vast funds required by fusion research which may never pan out
> would be better spent on making safe nuclear power plants using
> known technology.
>
> Steve
Hm. In what respects?
Dan Holzman-Tweed
> Dan Holzman-Tweed come on down:
>
>
> Dan, come on. Give me a fucking break. If it was Bush doing this shit, you
> would be all over him like white on rice. But since it's somebody who hates
> Bush, you are bending over backwards to justify his actions.
You're wrong. Really, really, wrong. I'm asking for some sort of real
evidence of "massive election fraud." You haven't even produced a
single piece of evidence for "isolated incidents of election fraud."
All you've brought to the table is a statistical analysis two economists
did, and one that's been refuted at that. I haven't said word one about
justifying his actions one way or another, I'm still trying to get you
to document some actions to justify... or not. Bring something real and
I'll be calling for his ouster, but FFS cut out this bullshit.
> Do I agree with a lot of the ideals Chavez claims
> to profess? Yes, I most certainly do. But I am not by any means going to
> hold up Chavez as the kind of leader we ought to be looking up to, and I do
> not look at Venezuela as the kind of government we should be emulating.
Once again, I haven't addressed any of this. All I've asked is that a
claim be backed up.
Bob King
On Dec 4, 11:46 am, Don SideB <donsi...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, your idea of the scientific method is to defer to expert opinion
> even when it conflicts with observable reality? Heaven forbid we
> should independently question authority clear evidence we can examine
> ourselves.
Observing reality and figuring out what it means are distinct
propositions. And even agreement on what is observed is kinda iffy some
days.
ARE there UFO's at Area 51? Well, yes, there are quite a lot of
"Unacknowledged Flying Objects" there, or there were.
I might also refer you to the Flat Earth Society for an interesting
example of the interpretation of observable reality.
For that matter, any Creation Science site.
And for an interesting COUNTERexample of the phenomonon; the Amazing
Randi and Psycops, who champion the premise that if it's possible to
fake a phenomonon, the phenomon must therefore have been faked.
Steve Pope
>Hm. In what respects?
For a given amount of power generation, a fusion reacion
has about five times the neutron fluence as a fission reaction.
This means that all the components in the reactor core
will fatigue faster, and will also become more radioactive
due to neutron bombardment.
So, although you do not have radioactive spent fuel like you
do in a fission reactor, you will have more other radioactive
junk to get rid of as components, fuel assemblies and whatnot
get replaced.
When you add it all up fusion is perhaps no cleaner.
Steve
IrishWinks
<markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The answers are found in Ohm's law and in Watt's work. P = E x I and
>E = I x R. P being watts, E Voltage, I amps and R resistance. But you
>have to show your work.
>
>::getting riding crop::
I always show my work and cite faithfully even when it's pointless:
Weinshenker, David. "Energy Policy: was: OT - YKIOK? (politics)."
No Site Title (only a Cite Title). 04 December
2006. soc.subculture.bdsm-bondage. 4 Dec 2006 <Usenet et al.>.
Sixoneight, Markem. "Energy Policy: was: OT - YKIOK? (politics)."
No Site Title (only a Cite Title). 04 December
2006. soc.subculture.bdsm-bondage. 4 Dec 2006 <Usenet et al.>.
Academically honest, but I think it may a bit too much for my sweet
ol' professor ...
Ruth Lawrence
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4574472F...@earthlink.net...
> Don SideB wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:32:49 +1100, "Ruth Lawrence"
>> <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Fissioning thorium is likely better than either above alternative.
>>
>> I know Thorium is used in some nuclear weapons, but I was unaware it
>> had potential us a large scale energy source. Can you point me to
>> information on that?
>>
>> What are the advantages over Uranium fission?
>
> U-238 can form Pu-239 in a similar way). U-233 has a relatively
> high neutron efficiency - there is a high probability that a
> neutron capture will result in a fission - even for "thermal"
> (slow) neutrons. It may be feasible to build a moderated reactor
> with U-233 that will act as a "breeder" - i.e., the production
> of new U-233 from neutron capture by the thorium will exceed
> the rate at which U-233 atoms are consumed in the fission process.
>
> Getting a rich enough "neutron surplus" for a Pu-239 reactor
> to be able to break even as a "breeder" requires running it
> as a "fast neutron" rather than a moderated reactor - tends
> to require difficult design features such as liquid sodium
> for cooling, to be harder to stabilize the power level, etc. -
> while a Th-232/U-233 breeder cycle may be able to use a
> conventional "pressurized water" reactor. (I believe India
> is exploring this fuel cycle for their reactors.)
Thanks dave.
Your science is stronger than mine :-)
Ruth, who understands that it's easier to turn a thorium reactor off, too
Lusus Naturae
>And for an interesting COUNTERexample of the phenomonon; the Amazing
>Randi and Psycops, who champion the premise that if it's possible to
>fake a phenomonon, the phenomon must therefore have been faked.
I don't think Randi et al. would accept ownership of this curious
restatement of the principal of parsimony.
--
Lusus Naturae
DonSideB
wrote:
>By the way, on a somewhat related topic, I have a question, and I know I'm
>really asking for it here, but I'm honestly curious. I gather from your posts
>that you believe the climate science community is collectively perpetrating a
>gargangtuan fraud upon the world. Why do you think they're doing it? I mean
>I know you've said "grant money", but that's kind of piddling in comparison to
>the enormity of what they've supposedly concocted, isn't it?
Assigning motives to people is always speculative. Certainly the field
of climatology has become 'grant rich' after decades of struggling for
funding.
But other factors may be a part. One being suddenly getting elevated
to the power elite, or maybe now climatologists are just getting
invited to better cocktail parties and like the attention they get
now. People do all sorts of things to get laid by people more
attractive than themselves. :-)
There aren't all that many real climatologists. Most of the chicken
little 'experts' in the global warming henhouse aren't scientists at
all. A guy who teaches environmental sciences in the local community
college is not a scientist, much less a climatologist. But he can
squawk about global warming at the local www.drinkingliberally.org
gathering and be treated like Jonas Salk. Do you think he wants to go
back to being slightly less interesting than a botanist?
There is also a strong anti-capitalist, anti-American thread to it.
After seeing capitalism drive socialism into the ground in the 80's,
there are a lot of folks who just want to tear down our economy just
to be able to say they were right after all and collectivism deserves
another chance.
It is not people who set out to do evil who do the most harm, it is
those who set out to do good but are willing to lie to achieve it who
are most dangerous. I suspect that nearly all of the real
climatologists know Gore and company are greatly exaggerating the
threat but are enjoying their new prestige too much, and have seen
what happened to Dr. Gray for pointing out the emperor's shortage of
clothes, and are willing to let hyperbole rule rather than find
themselves in the hated minority for speaking up.
Or perhaps they think exaggeration is necessary to get something done
and telling lies about a watery grave is a better way to get their way
than just admitting they want to save polar bears.
Don
DonSideB
Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
DonSideB
wrote:
>As I understand it, climate change models all predict localized
>counter-trends. Was the Medieval Warming worldwide? And another
>question - are we comparing apples to apples.
It was at least Northern Hemisphere wide. There being no history to
speak of, and little coastal archeology available from the Southern
Hemisphere at that time, I don't know if anyone has determined if that
half the globe participated. But then it may not be participating in
this one either. Antarctica doesn't seem to be warming a bit.
>Do we know what caused
>it.?
No, but I don't think we know what is really causing this one either.
A few possibilities:
The solar constant isn't constant.
Volcanoes can put a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than
man can.
For that matter, termites put more greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere than man does.
Cyclical changes in ocean currents beyond our control.
A better question would be what caused the warming that ended the last
glacial period. Now that was a warming, and it happened in the face of
an enormous albedo. According to the current climate models, the Ice
age should not have ended. Too much albedo, too much land covered by
ice for methane the escape. That required an energy input we can't
even imagine.
Climate has cycled through time for reasons we can only guess at in
science fiction.
But I am willing to admit I don't know all the answers. Too bad Gore
isn't.
Don SideB
<irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote:
>I always show my work and cite faithfully even when it's pointless:
>
>Weinshenker, David. "Energy Policy: was: OT - YKIOK? (politics)."
> No Site Title (only a Cite Title). 04 December
> 2006. soc.subculture.bdsm-bondage. 4 Dec 2006 <Usenet et al.>.
>
>Sixoneight, Markem. "Energy Policy: was: OT - YKIOK? (politics)."
> No Site Title (only a Cite Title). 04 December
> 2006. soc.subculture.bdsm-bondage. 4 Dec 2006 <Usenet et al.>.
>
>Academically honest, but I think it may a bit too much for my sweet
>ol' professor ...
I dare you.
Markem
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:50:56 -0700, IrishWinks
><irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote:
>
>>I always show my work and cite faithfully even when it's pointless:
>>
>>Weinshenker, David. "Energy Policy: was: OT - YKIOK? (politics)."
>> No Site Title (only a Cite Title). 04 December
>> 2006. soc.subculture.bdsm-bondage. 4 Dec 2006 <Usenet et al.>.
>>
>>Sixoneight, Markem. "Energy Policy: was: OT - YKIOK? (politics)."
>> No Site Title (only a Cite Title). 04 December
>> 2006. soc.subculture.bdsm-bondage. 4 Dec 2006 <Usenet et al.>.
>>
>>Academically honest, but I think it may a bit too much for my sweet
>>ol' professor ...
>
>I dare you.
Do I hear a double dog.....
Markem
(sixoneeight) = 618
Bob King
Golden California Girls wrote:
> Bob King wrote:
> >> Seriously, the data set is strongly suggestive, but not conclusive. The
> >> required corrective action, taking the USA (and Europe) back to third world
> >> conditions, is a bit extreme. Of course if al-Qeada succeeds we won't need to
> >> do it to ourselves. If you want to live as your do now (go to work vs. farm and
> >> forage yourself) you are going to have to accept a nuclear power plant in your
> >> backyard. No other viable option. Want to stop fossil fuel use, campaign for
> >> nuclear power. Do something positive and people will follow, do negative and no
> >> action results. .
> >
> > I"m not sure what you mean by "third world conditions." Third world
> > conditions are energy-inefficent, even if they use less energy
> > per-capita.
>
> If I understand what Gore is talking about, he is talking about the complete
> withdrawal of oil as an energy source globally in a year or two time span or the
> planet burns up. [Sounds that way from his chicken little screeching anyway.]
I have yet to watch the film, but that's not possible and whatever else
I think about him, I don't think he could be seriously saying that,
he's hardly stupid.
> What keeps us from being third world countries is because we have systems from
> getting products from point A to point B. In most places that is roads and big
> rig trucks. The same system gets workers from suburbs to factories or office
> buildings and gets shoppers to stores to by the products. Transportation is why
> we are a first world country.
Ayup.
> Without a distribution system for products we would become just like the rest of
> the third world. 90% of our surviving population, you do realize 2/3 of us
> wouldn't be around after the change, would be reduced to subsistence farming.
> Science and tech would end. We would re-enter the dark ages. Surly you know
> that "would you like fries with that" isn't going to keep the economy afloat;
> especially when the fries can't get from the farm to the factory to the fast
> food outlet!
Indeed. So of course we whould need to prioritise distributive
transportation. Fortunately we have a system that is already very
fuel-efficient and could easily switch to biodesel were there adequate
supplies of it. I'm referring to intermodal freight, of course. truck
train ship train truck - all in the same container.
> Replacing roads and big rig trucks with anything else is a multi decade long
> project that would burn ten times any potential greenhouse gas cuts that
> building it could save! So if we are stuck with roads and trucks then some sort
> of electric power is the only option besides oil. That either means hydrogen
> fuel or chemical batteries. [To make hydrogen pass electricity through water!]
> To make electricity you burn oil, natural gas, coal all green house gas makers
> or you split atoms.
> You'll counter with wind, solar and geothermal. Since wind farms kill birds we
> can't build those and the wind doesn't blow hard enough in enough spots anyway.
> Solar and geothermal, read on.
>
> >What we need is a lot of cheap energy with low
> > envrionmental impact - and ideally, some positive benefit. Nuclear
> > energy isn't a long-term solution, but it's a good start. Work on
> > nuclear waste recycling may make it more efficient. But we really need
> > to crack the fusion problem.
>
> Nuclear energy is the only long-term solution. There simply isn't enough of
> anything else available, unless of course you want to kill off a large fraction
> of the world population of humans. That is another solution by the way.
heh. probably not. Most wars end in a net GAIN of population, though
you do have your classics, famine and disease.
> > And there are a lot of very pure and green solutions that make a lot of
> > economic sense too, especially factored into co2 emissions markets.
> > Feeding algae with stack gasses in order to produce biofuels as a
> > welcome byproduct is an already well-advanced technology, one that is
> > widely applicable once the basic science and engineering is done.
>
> What fraction of the total world energy consumption can this provide? How many
> existing stacks are convertible to this tech? Remember if it costs more energy
> to convert than what you get back ...
Well, actually, this approach seems to be very attractive. I've been
following it loosely, and what it amounts to is a net efficiency gain
and or slash in production costs. For one thing, a byprodoct of the
process, after the extraction of the fuel oil from the algae is a solid
biomass fuel that produces more than enough energy to keep the whole
process going. It's a process that would not be economical unless there
were huge volumes of co2 available, but when there are, there you go.
And currently, that's an unexploited resource.
> > Meanwhile - we should be building solar space arrays. But that will
> > take billions and billions, as well as the concentration of every
> > space-capable power to achieve. Well worth doing though, for thousands
> > of reasons - but probably most importantly as a planetary frontier.
>
> You are aware that it requires more energy to make a solar cell than that solar
> cell produces in its lifetime? And you are going to put it atop billions of
> greenhouse gas rockets that rip holes in the ozone layer!!
Not speaking of solar cell arrays, actually. A square mile or so of
mylar and a ceramic thermal engine of some sort would do nicely.
> SCE's demonstration solar plant near Barstow CA did turn a profit. It wasn't
> viable because it did close sooner than expected, the liquid sodium loop was a
> bit more corrosive than expected, and it never made the power cheaper than it
> could be obtained by other methods. Not saying large scale solar can't be done,
> but we are a couple of decades away at least. Also are there enough places
> where the sun shines 300+ full days a year? I don't think transmissions lines
> from the Sahara Desert count.
There's long running technology demonstrations here in Nevada that are
far more robust than SCE's - and are now commercially available from at
least two competing companies. Rather expensive, as they are hand
built. But it amounts to a parobolic mirror focused on a sterling
engine, which drives a generator. The generator charges batteries, for
local use, or feeds into the electricity grid.
I should point out that if you are making energy while the sun shines,
that means less needs to be produced by other means.
But as the system uses a sterling engine, any source of heat will do,
so an installation in a remote area could burn diesel, pellet fuel or
wood if need be. And yes, they do have the add on. :P
Or in other words, you have a generator that can run on pretty much any
fuel as well as solar, using the same area, investmetn and plant as a
solar array.
> Some people talk about space mirrors. Assuming the energy needed to heft the
> mirror isn't more that you can get back ... I'm just wondering what the hell it
> will do the to weather to have a hot column of air from the mirror's solar
> energy. Will that spawn violent weather? Not sure this one is such a smart
> idea, never mind when - not if - the space mirror pointing system goes on the fritz.
Transmission of energy to ground is an issue, fa sure, and I agree, I
don't think bouncing the light down is a great plan. But one way to
take caree of it is to put a rectenna array somewhere remote and send
the energy down via a very very wide beam of microwaves. We may now
have the capablity to beam power safely at higher energy levels to
smaller arrays, using some form of demand feedback.
> > Far more useful than wars to control diminishing oil reserves and use
> > up the restless and disaffected.
> >
> > Oh, and then there's that megavolcano in yellowstone that had BETTER be
> > examined as an energy resource - with an eye toward keeping it from
> > boiling over! A volcano with a caldera bigger than vermont strikes me
> > as something that should be on our national threat radar.
>
> We have a lot of geothermal power plants. They all have one problem in common.
> The pipes corrode so fast they don't make money absent tax credits. Now maybe
> someone will come up with some sort of ceramic that is flexible enough to make
> pipes out of. Then long term geothermal might make sense. Right now nuclear
> energy is cheaper.
Yeah, if we can pry it out of DOD... The flexible ceramic, I mean.
> As for the big hot spot, in a lot of places where we tap, things get more
> unpredictable. I don't know if cooling the rock above to make a plug like in
> the lid of a pressure cooker is such a good idea. Might make the eruption a lot
> bigger when it happens. Besides, do you really want to see Old Faithful going
> into a pipe?
Actually, the whole thing is definately stressing at the moment, and
no, we don't want to screw the plug down. eek. I don't give a frack
about old faithful, given the alternative. I was thinking more along
the lines of depressurizing the system in a controlled manner, so that
if/when it blwos, we have some say in where and what direction.
A net energy gain would be a bonus.
>
> This post is intended to make everyone think before acting. There is a lot more
> going on in the system than just burning oil. It is fully as complex as Laffer
> curves are to economic theory. Anything less than a double thickness phone book
> study should be dismissed as uninformed drivel - including this post. In any
> case if you are going to propose solutions to a problem that may not exist you
> damn well better know the solution isn't worse than the problem. [Should be
> somebodies law!]
Oh, it's probably more complex than that. It's not just the thigns we
know we can't predict, it's the things we don't know ... god. I almost
quoted Rumsfeld. Of course, he should have paid attention to his own
facile ass.
This is a chaotic situation, and the way a chaotic sytem is managed is
to not worry so much about the complexity. Rather, you address what you
can, where you can, and observe, then based on that observation, you do
the next thing. Three things in, you are nowhere familiar doing things
you couldn't have predicted using means you didn't know before, but
that's ok.
It's a bitch for them five year plans, though.
What we do know is that there are a ton of very compelling reasons to
dump the oil habit, asap.
There are a ton of even better reasons to consider livable alternatives
to the way we build housing now. Lots are well-proven, they just need a
damn variance every time they are used and you can't get your equity
out in many cases. That issue could be addressed tomorrow and it would
start changing things by next week. Simply changing building codes and
doing things like, say, mandatiting waste-water recycling in arid areas
would save tons and tons of energy and water.
I just read somethnig else that astonished me. Wild grasses produce a
great deal more biomass than any tame crop, including corn. I wish I
had the cite, I ment to blog it but didn't. Anyway, it was an
accidental discovery by scientests looking for something else entirely.
Moreover, the greatest amount of that biomass stays underground,
improving the soil and fixing carbon, so that in some (longish) while,
it can be farmed again. All this without any massive soil-reclamation
effort, I might add.
What it boils down to though is that it's economical even on exausted
farmland. You can reaise grass, harvest once or twice a year and
ferment them for ethonol, in a process that is strongly carbon-negative
instead of break-even or slightly carbon-positive as with corn. Jt
takes up no existing farm land, so you can grow stuff people want to
eat, instead of corn. (we have way, way too many acres of corn in
production, hence ethonol schemes and high-fructose corn syrup in
everything.
No fertilizer and little or no fuel is expended in raising the crop. If
you were really anal about it, you could harvest with horses.
But along the way, we should be looking at the economies of community
living - with a wide variation of communities that have as much energy
and food self-sufficency as possible. I'm not talking lo-tech, either.
I'm talking about very smart communities, with green buildings
(literally) producing algal biofuels and fresh food as a byproduct of
their climate control systems.
Interesting factoid - did you know that Bejing produces something like
thirty percent of it's produce from rooftop and balcony gardens?
Transportaton cost, near zero. Cities have tons of waste heat and co2,
so it's advantagious. Of course, i'd want to wash them veggies real
good.
Anyhoo, the point I'm making is that there are huge net gains that can
be made with tiny changes that most people will either never notice, or
actually prefer. Example - the widespread use of biodigester technology
to manage human and animal waste - currently a huge problem worldwide,
with huge associated costs.
Biodigesters get rid of the waste and produce both fuel (methane) and
high-grade fertilizer exactly where it's needed - near any
concentration of pooping food consumers.
One thing about anything that's carbon positive and or waste intense is
that it's evidence of an inefficiency that has room for a great deal of
profit.