Why Armies that Chase the Oil Markets Will End Up in the Lake of Fire
American
Sooner or later, it was predicted that both the Beast and False
Prophet end up in the "Lake of Fire". Can anyone take a guess what
they
think consists of liquid form that's flammable?
There'd have to be a mini-revolution of sorts here in the U.S. amongst
the employees of companies themselves that produce the oil-based
derivatives (gasoline) in order to massively re-tool their industry.
For this, I would suggest a federal program that would assist the oil
companies in retraining and retooling for a gasoline-to-kerosene
makeover [1], while the automobile manufacturers retrain for replacing
the internal combustion engine with the nuclear powered type.
Stations that sell gasoline could make just as much profit selling
purified H-H-O that gets "cracked" as they do the gasoline.
Each of these industries would receive a tax credit for the expenses
incurred in retooling and retraining, the oil crisis would be solved,
and the human race would benefit the most.
[1] LOX/Kerosene is the major propellent of the Saturn V series
boosters, and a major supply of these vehicles for earth-to-orbit
technology would launch the country into a new space age.
Payload costs would drastically reduce. Space-entrepreneurs
would rekindle the promise markets, and the country would
enjoy the fruits of a major new industrial revolution.
American
"Man always travels along precipices. His truest obligation
is to keep his balance."
- Jose Ortega Y Gasset
no surrender
"American" <samuel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:479a266f-6b58-4c9f...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Do we really need another oil-chasing president?
]Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your life is with
oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets speak of.
Dennis
Eric Chomko
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:479a266f-6b58-4c9f...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Do we really need another oil-chasing president?
>
> *****
> ]Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your life is with
> oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets speak of.
>
More the reason to get away from it now.
Like anything that is a monopoly or close to it; those in control will
do nothing to change the status quo. Big Oil is like the old USSR, you
have no choice. Well I say restructure (perestroika) now!
American
:
: *****
: Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your
: life is with oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets
: speak of.
:
: Dennis
Not ALL oil products, just the GASOLINE by-product.
Retooling can't cost anywhere near what the government
spends to fight terrorism overseas.
As I understand, most oil byproducts get siphoned out
through cracking towers, where the various derivatives
of the crude get distilled.
What's so difficult about shutting off and/or redirecting
the outputs to kerosene?
It can't be THAT much of an engineering issue, if
there was REAL market justification for diverting a
similar quantity of LOX/kerosene to the orbital markets.
It's an vision worth investigating. The contrasting VSE
here is between a happy prosperous market that's not
federally supressed at the 4% manufacturing rate, as
opposed to a world parking lot.
(It's almost a moot issue)
no surrender
"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8a0dd085-4ad5-4a9e...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 11:31 am, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:479a266f-6b58-4c9f...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
Do we really need another oil-chasing president?
>
> *****
> ]Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your life is with
> oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets speak of.
>
More the reason to get away from it now.
*****
It would be amusing to watch you try getting away from it in your daily
life.
Dennis
American
:
: More the reason to get away from it now.
:
Then you agree, congratulations.
: *****
: It would be amusing to watch you try getting away from
: it in your daily life.
:
Are we creating a situational ethic the gives an inanimate
product a consciousness of its own?
: Dennis
:
: Like anything that is a monopoly or close to it; those
: in control will do nothing to change the status quo.
: Big Oil is like the old USSR, you have no choice.
: Well I say restructure (perestroika) now!
:
You can't throw the baby (replace gasoline) out with
the bath water (your "big oil").
We must be cautious and at the same time specific
with what we are suggesting.
no surrender
On Jan 31, 4:57 pm, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
:
: More the reason to get away from it now.
:
Then you agree, congratulations.
: *****
: It would be amusing to watch you try getting away from
: it in your daily life.
:
Are we creating a situational ethic the gives an inanimate
product a consciousness of its own?
****
Now you're just being silly. Our economy and the world's economy is based on
the use of hydrocarbons. Try getting away from it anytime in the next two or
three generations, at least.
no surrender
> On Jan 31, 11:31 am, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> :
> : *****
> : Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your
> : life is with oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets
> : speak of.
> :
> : Dennis
>
>
> Not ALL oil products, just the GASOLINE by-product.
>
> Retooling can't cost anywhere near what the government
> spends to fight terrorism overseas.
>
> As I understand, most oil byproducts get siphoned out
> through cracking towers, where the various derivatives
> of the crude get distilled.
>
> What's so difficult about shutting off and/or redirecting
> the outputs to kerosene?
>
> It can't be THAT much of an engineering issue, if
> there was REAL market justification for diverting a
> similar quantity of LOX/kerosene to the orbital markets.
>
> It's an vision worth investigating. The contrasting VSE
> here is between a happy prosperous market that's not
> federally supressed at the 4% manufacturing rate, as
> opposed to a world parking lot.
I don't understand what you are nattering on about. How is kerosene, another
product based on hydrocarbons, anybody's idea of a magic elixir?
Dennis
American
: "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
:
:
::
:: More the reason to get away from it now.
::
::
: Then you agree, congratulations.
:
:: *****
:: It would be amusing to watch you try getting away from
:: it in your daily life.
::
::
:: Are we creating a situational ethic the gives an inanimate
:: product a consciousness of its own?
: ****
: Now you're just being silly. Our economy and the world's
: economy is based on the use of hydrocarbons. Try getting
: away from it anytime in the next two or
: three generations, at least.
:
: I don't understand what you are nattering on about.
: How is kerosene, another product based on hydrocarbons,
: anybody's idea of a magic elixir?
"Now" the case IS CLOSED.
The inanimate product, according to "Dennis", must have a
consciousness of its own. Why do I say this? Because YOU
have stated that the "economy is BASED on hydrocarbons",
and that is what you believe.
I do not believe that the economy is "based" on
hydrocarbons any more than it is "based" on consumers
and industries that utilize those hydrocarbons.
But let's be specific. Again, I was talking about not
replacing ALL HYDROCARBONS but just the GASOLINE
HYDROCARBON to which you continually MASK the
word GASOLINE with the words "ALL HYDROCARBONS".
AS I STATED, there are several byproducts of crude oil.
Only one of them is GASOLINE. Another one of them
happens to be KEROSENE.
Kerosene just happens to be part of the fuel that the
Saturn V's use: LOX/kerosene.
Apparently, you've already been desensitized by the
mind numbed robots of the establishment/status quo/
dominionist/zionist/bureaucratic BORG collective
and do not wish to join the ranks of the science
faction, except to suppose that "Things are the way
they are" as you are exercising your existentialist
views, maybe because "Dennis" is not what matters
the most, at least with the science faction.
Do you oppose a life force with these negative
thoughts? If you must include yourself as being a
complete victim of others' spheres of influence,
and have completely refused the analytical argument
in favor of the existential.
Good luck with your endeavors.
:
: American
no surrender
Damn, you're cute...strange but cute. What is it about kerosene you find so
seductive and gasoline so repugnant?
And, "dominionist/zionist/bureaucratic BORG collective"!! What does that
mean?
Dennis
Eric Chomko
> "Eric Chomko" <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8a0dd085-4ad5-4a9e...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 11:31 am, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:479a266f-6b58-4c9f...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
>
> Do we really need another oil-chasing president?
>
>
>
> > *****
> > ]Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your life is with
> > oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets speak of.
>
> More the reason to get away from it now.
> *****
> It would be amusing to watch you try getting away from it in your daily
> life.
So you think the unibomber was funny? Sure he was a radical but
getting away from "it" as you put was excatly what he was doing.
Now for more sane people, they can ride a bike, own a hybrid car,
carpool, etc. Also, use wind and solar power rather than natural gas
and oil.
I find it interesting how smug you are about being a slave to Big Oil.
Perhaps you make a living from the industry?
Eric
Eric Chomko
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1e20690f-7cf9-440b...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 4:57 pm, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
>
> :
> : More the reason to get away from it now.
> :
>
> Then you agree, congratulations.
>
> : *****
> : It would be amusing to watch you try getting away from
> : it in your daily life.
> :
>
> Are we creating a situational ethic the gives an inanimate
> product a consciousness of its own?
> ****
> Now you're just being silly. Our economy and the world's economy is based on
> the use of hydrocarbons. Try getting away from it anytime in the next two or
> three generations, at least.
Wrong! Less than one. We should be using solar and wind more and more
and hydrogen as well. Fossil fuel will run out some day and we
shouldn't use up every single barrel and then start thinking about
what to do next.
No one believes that the oil reserves will last for three generations.
No one!
Eric
Joe Blow
news:4p6dnfq7G7N5yD7a...@comcast.com...
>
> "American" <samuel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7b49fcd4-8eb9-4f24...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 31, 7:55 pm, "no surrender" <no_surren...@never.net> wrote:
>> : "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<quasi-scientific rantings snipped>
> views, maybe because "Dennis" is not what matters
>> the most, at least with the science faction.
>>
>> Do you oppose a life force with these negative
>> thoughts? If you must include yourself as being a
>> complete victim of others' spheres of influence,
>> and have completely refused the analytical argument
>> in favor of the existential.
>>
>> Good luck with your endeavors.
> *******
> Damn, you're cute...strange but cute. What is it about kerosene you find
> so
> seductive and gasoline so repugnant?
> And, "dominionist/zionist/bureaucratic BORG collective"!! What does that
> mean?
>
> Dennis
***
Where can I get some of whatever "American" is smoking?
Joe Blow
no surrender
"Joe Blow" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:BqYoj.42160$G23....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
Oh, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want any of that. See what it's done to
him. A couple of drags, and you wouldn't be able to tie your own shoes
again...ever.
Dennis
>
>
American
: "Joe Blow" <spam-me-...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
:
::
:: Where can I get some of whatever "American" is smoking?
::
:: Joe Blow
:
: ****
: Oh, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want any of that. See what
: it's done to him. A couple of drags, and you wouldn't be able
: to tie your own shoes again...ever.
:
: Dennis
Get a grip on yourself, man, and fix your focus on
solutions rather than symptoms, cause last time I
checked, there's over 1.3 billion Chinese that want
your job, and they're increasing by 10
million a year...
Is there no end to the pessimism here? Is there no
offering the least bit of intuitive gut-felt reasonable
doubt of the oil markets being engraved in the stone of
a world class infrastructure that only the transnationalists
their stockholding clonesmen, the rused/stung/snookered
military industrial establishment, and the Lords of Bush ever
get to see getting accomplished? Why does any or all of
these accomplishments have to be so insularized? Isn't
it because of the deal that is dealt to the those who support
any kind of energy infrastructure must also, by default,
lend itself such an encompassing "evil empire" that people
like "Dennis" feel oblidged to succumb to the "powers that
be" only because hard core dark science people like
"Joe Blow" thinks he's got a real headlock on the science
that must "get us there", may I remind you that cracking
towers, feedlines, valves, boiler houses, and storage
tanks have been around for just about as long as the
oil itself, so what's the problem with suggesting that we
trade out gasoline powered automobiles with LOX/kerosene
powered Saturn V's?
Gasoline production in the U.S. amounts to 9,233,000
barrels per day, so if we're talking about replacing
the same VALUE of gasoline in kerosene, then in addition
to the current 54,000 barrels used per day, a total of
9,287,000 barrels of kerosene would be required. Since
we're talking RP-1 kerosene, this amounts to 46 launches
per day, or about 1 per state in the country, at 18,250
launches per year.
The amount of mass delivered into space at the rate of
5339 tons per day, or 1,948,839 tons per year into LEO.
This is approximately the equivalent to 19 Nimitz aircraft
carriers, or an entire Navy.
Of course, it doesn't have to happen all at once. A gradual
weening in to the financial markets would be a boon to
most or all U.S. manufacturers. In five years, about
570,000 people could be working in LEO - that's about 0.2
percent of the entire population of the U.S. - simply by
phasing out gasoline and replacing it with kerosene.
Roadway congestion across America would also show a
decline by 0.2 percent, and that is only talking about replacing
570,000 people that drive to work every day in metropolitan
areas. If other working people had the desire to become
employed in LEO, then they could either replace those who
return to earth via passenger capsules, or displace some
who decide to join a mining crew for further opportunities.
The possibilities are endless.
The right reasons are there to accomplish a project of
this magnitude.
Let's face the facts - most or all Americans are tired of
forming dependencies with foreign countries that do
nothing but jack the prices of oil around every time
either some terrorist group threatens the security/
trade route of an energy dealer, or an environmentalist
passes new legislation blocking the drilling for oil
somewhere. There has got to be a group of people who
are willing to work in space and take full advantage of
this opportunity, before the system that is supposed to
be serving our needs becomes too "predatory priced".
American
"There is no security in this life. There is
only opportunity."
- Douglas MacArthur
no surrender
******
No, young fool, I do not make my living from oil. I do, however, benefit
from it, as do you.
Let's see how you benefit from oil; we'll limit this educational lecture to
one item: your computer.
-electricity comes into your home to operate it, plus provide the heat, AC,
humidity control, power for entertainment devices, etc. to make your life
safe and more comfortable.
-all the employees of the power company use electricity for the same
purposes.
-the computer, keyboard, speakers, printer, and monitor made from plastic,
derived from oil.
-the wiring insulation in the computer made from plastic.
-the power cord and plug coated in plastic.
-the desk upon which it sits likely topped with a plastic laminate.
-all the employees of the computer production company use electricity for
the same purposes.
-every piece of paper you run through your printer was made with the help of
oil.
-the ink in your printer was made with the help of oil.
-the CD's you use to rip songs are made from plastic, plus their packaging
and the storage rack for them.
-the earplugs you wear for your iPod or the MP3 files on your hard drive
made from plastics and with thehelp of oil.
-all the employees of all the companies that make, deliver, sell and repair
all these items use oil.
-the ISP you use uses oil, as do their employees and suppliers.
-the NG administrators also use oil the same way.
-every website you visit uses oil the same way.
Now, where are you going to make a stand, and say no more oil for those
products, those services, those employees?
Also, remember, the Unabomber (not unibomber, as you wrote it) lived in a
one room shack, was insane, and killed folks. That's the future you hope
for?
Dennis
no surrender
The possibilities are endless.
*****
I would love to see your imitation of Dennis Hopper's character in
Apocalypse Now...like, ya know what I mean, man!!! Huh, man, huh, ya know
what I mean, man!!!
Dennis
American
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
As George Eliot writes about the Silas Mariner, the
weaver, his does so with such inscrutable intensity,
that one is quite tempted to create for themselves
an environment that wakes up the folk hero in all
of us:
"A shadowy conception of power that by much persuasion
can be induced to refrain from inflicting harm, is the
shape most easily taken by the sense of the invisible
in the minds of men who have always been pressed
close by primitive wants, and to whom a life of hard
toil has ever been illuminated by any enthusiastic
religious faith. To them pain and mishap present a
far wider range of possibilities than gladness and
enjoyment: their imagination is almost barren of the
images that feed desire and hope, but is all overgrown
by recollections that are a perpetual pasture to fear."
- Silas Mariner: The Weaver of Raveloe, George Eliot
All of humanity has weaved their tales of life as if
they were somehow subjects to either, and/or the designer
of grindstones (teachers), pottery wheels (ambivalence),
sewing machines (social), or winnowers (religious).
IMO, true angst is how you can balance all of these, with
the least ambivalence in your favor.
American
"Fear is the passion of slaves."
- Patrick Henry
no surrender
****
Whew, you are abstruse.Tell ya what, get a copy of Strunk and Whites
Elements of Style, learn its lessons, then get back to us.
Dennis
American
Yeah, tell that to cusses like McCain. Ha!
He could use a good dose of Strunk and White's from
what I've been told..
-
no surrender
*****
It's obvious you do not know the word abstruse, nor the topics in Elements
of Style. Whew.
Dennis
-
American
Funny version:
Y'oughta not do that, mister, I wuz just gettin' started here!
Uh, let's see now, the word "abstruse", does that mean
an angle over 90 degrees?
or
Standard version:
Yes, I do believe that we would be much better off if
I used the proper version of communication, according to
Strunk and White, esp. in the "Elements of Style" as you
have suggested.
However, you "threw me" when one of your first comments
was about the impersonation of "like, ya know what I
mean, man!!!"
Is this what you prefer as a common usage over the
internet for groupspeak such as this?
I have trouble following your train of syntax.
What's up with that?
American
Joe Blow
>
> Yeah, tell that to cusses like McCain. Ha!
> He could use a good dose of Strunk and White's from
> what I've been told..
> *****
> It's obvious you do not know the word abstruse, nor the topics in Elements
> of Style. Whew.
>
> Dennis
Bet you didn't know they bottled it. It's a lot like Milgillicudy's, ....
only mintier.
JB
no surrender
Funny version:
or
Standard version:
American
******
Whew, finally got you to write some simple declarative sentences. Now that
you have demonstrated that skill, please explain to us (using S.D.S.) your
embrace of kerosene as a cure-all, and your distaste for gasoline. And, it's
Silas Marner...not Silas Mariner. A small thing, but it's those small things
that so often trip up the pretentious, don't they!
Dennis
Eric Chomko
There are better ways to get energy you old fart...
>
> Let's see how you benefit from oil; we'll limit this educational lecture to
> one item: your computer.
My computer is made from silicon, plastic and metal. So with plastics
you have a point.
> -electricity comes into your home to operate it, plus provide the heat, AC,
> humidity control, power for entertainment devices, etc. to make your life
> safe and more comfortable.
Energy as in power to my home can come im many ways. Hyrdo-electric
power being better than fossil fule burning.
> -all the employees of the power company use electricity for the same
> purposes.
Why not solar or wind power along with hydro-electric? Why burn fossil
fuel and add to the existing greenhouse effect?
> -the computer, keyboard, speakers, printer, and monitor made from plastic,
> derived from oil.
There are better ways of making plastic such as the use of organic
matter such as corn.
> -the wiring insulation in the computer made from plastic.
> -the power cord and plug coated in plastic.
> -the desk upon which it sits likely topped with a plastic laminate.
> -all the employees of the computer production company use electricity for
> the same purposes.
> -every piece of paper you run through your printer was made with the help of
> oil.
> -the ink in your printer was made with the help of oil.
> -the CD's you use to rip songs are made from plastic, plus their packaging
> and the storage rack for them.
> -the earplugs you wear for your iPod or the MP3 files on your hard drive
> made from plastics and with thehelp of oil.
> -all the employees of all the companies that make, deliver, sell and repair
> all these items use oil.
> -the ISP you use uses oil, as do their employees and suppliers.
> -the NG administrators also use oil the same way.
> -every website you visit uses oil the same way.
>
> Now, where are you going to make a stand, and say no more oil for those
> products, those services, those employees?
What percentage of a barrel of oil is used for plastic vs. gas and
other forms of non-renewable energy that also causes pollution?
>
> Also, remember, the Unabomber (not unibomber, as you wrote it) lived in a
> one room shack, was insane, and killed folks. That's the future you hope
> for?
No. I just want to get rid of oil as fast as possible due to it
pollutant properties, other cleaner forms of energy to replace it,
etc.
no surrender
*****
Well, which source do you prefer that will give you the same level of
energy?
Dennis
Eric Chomko
A better question is what form of energy gives you less pollution. Or
do you actually like pollution?
American
You don't, nor probably ever will, find out enough about
the fantastic properties of H-H-O, because you're too
interested in using it for more "down to earth" (pun intended)
technology.
I know this because I read about the cheap price potential
it has, but based on what I've read about it, I disagree
with its efficiency as a replacement for gasoline.
On the other hand, there is something extremely useful
but still relatively unknown about H-H-O's recombinatory
properties.
I do not suspect that you will ever be able to comprehend
what I'm talking about, because of the quantum nature
of the ensuing discussion.
As I said before, the properties of H-H-O *indirectly*
support another technology that is currently on the
quantum energized horizon.
If you ever care enough to check out some of my other
posts here on sci.space.policy, you will find that I am
in no way a follower of the dictates of the establishment
energy/transportation markets per se, but am working
on trying to introduce a revolutionary way of looking at
how quantum technology could be introduced in the
everyday world of backwards, 'metered' technology.
Quantum technologies ARE TRULY REVOLUTIONARY.
They also appear to be quite interdisciplinary - so if
you're looking for some particular engineering
"mousetrap" that I've already developed, it's still
in hibernation, at least until a greater interest can be
generated for its intended purpose.
There are a few other things happening in this country
that also need to "get out of the way" in order for the
ideas of inventors to propagate effectively.
I have spoke about these things in other writings.
In fact, if you read some of my earlier postings on
earth-to-orbit technology, you would find that there
are particular advantages to things like mining the
asteroids (esp. metallic ones).
Asteroid mining, IMO, is the progenitor technology
that will lead this nation to nearby star systems, with
not only a reward system (precious metals), but also
offers a great opportunity to rekindle the tiny spark
that we had with the Apollo program.
Multiply Apollo by 10,000 and you'll see what I'm
driving at.
These are the "baby steps" that must take us out to
LEO, for a massive earth-to-orbit campaign that
will be the envy of all the nations on the earth.
The quantum nature of space exploration will then
follow the baby steps with larger ones.
I mentioned in another post that
"The external influences to personology traits consisting
of information that is communicated (metaprogrammed)
including superfluidic or chaotic information that would
represent the lack of function to process information
according to inherent or attempts at usefulness, but
consisting of the aetheric qualities of structure including
repetitive patterned behavior, group association, and
group division in order to make the attempt at proces-
sing the information."
If you have trouble understanding the above, then
relax a little. These ideas are thought of in a very
meditative state of mind, and they are ideas that I
have given a considerable amount of time to create.
American
The particular advantage of the above groups are the
ability to retain memory of diverse environments that
may be life threatening, i.e., a sort of "red shifted"
state of consciousness, and, alternately, a projected
state of consciousness, i.e., "blue shifted"." These
consciousnesses represent the deltronic mediators, as
they are an identification of who would be the most
flexible 'subsumers' as well as 'subsumed' deltronic
pilots for interstellar travel.
In other words, one far field component of one person's
"repetitive patterned behavior, group association, and
group division" could be similar to another person's
"repetitive patterned behavior, group association, and
group division", and even one group's similar associa-
tion could be similar to another group's similar asso-
ciation. If this is the case, then there is one group's
red-shifted and blue-shifted sums of shared space reso-
nances with another group's sum of red-shifted and blue-
shifted space resonances. In fact, the red-shifted and
blue-shifted component's of "another group's red-shifted
and blue-shifted space resonances" represent the two
other red-shifted and blue-shifted photons in the far-
field component of space resonance.
These "two other red-shifted and blue-shifted photons"
are actually even momenta photons that are produced when
a spherical standing wave, created by superimposing a
space resonance as a negative out- wave at the center
of an electron's in- wave, for a mass-to-length trans-
formation with the conventional dimensions of Einsteinian
Energy m(l**2)(t**-2) becoming (l**3)(t**-2). These re-
lationships are the result of the "e" charge of the
electron, that is an ionic one that delivers MASS as
"space synchronous" energy in terms of a mass-to-length,
or l(l**2)(t**-2), or (l**3)(t**-2). This involves the
super-position of two INBOUND and OUTBOUND resonant
frequencies, at SOME POINT OF HARMONIC CONVERGENCE.
Another aspect of "space synchronous" energy is that
it might also be regarded as a "time synchronous" event
in the sense of some shared, resonant phenomenon, such
as the 'observation' of an event (agreed upon between
two parties) as taking place 'simultaneously'.
Since any agreement between two parties as a shared
experience has to include the intentional imprint of
some prime directive, e.g., achieving delivery to a
particular spacetime coordinate (represented by (p,iq),
discussed later), it is deltronic self-same conscious-
ness that must create the shared experiences based
upon some initial, theoretical, and therefore imaginary
shared intent between the two parties. Therefore, the
experience between two parties cannot be exactly the
same as the intent of each party.
Since the intent has now become subjective, the
corresponding delivery for this particular brand of in-
tention imprintation to some spacetime (p,iq) repre-
sents an ionic exchange between QCD "mirrorverses" in
deltronic consciousness, while the "experience" has
become the end or objective representing ANOTHER
ASPECT of the same brand of intention imprinting
towards the same (p,iq) for deltronic QCD "multiverse"
TACHYONIC exchange.
It just so happens that for para-positronium, there is
a charge conjugation parity of -1, meaning that the mo-
mentum frequency, in terms of the parameters of the sine
function, is equal to:
-[gm(c**2)b/h], where the value gm(c**2)/h=mass frequency.
In these equations, "g" is a relativistic term, equal to
g = [1 - (v/c)**2]**-1/2 for the doppler effect. The
value for b is the relative velocity b = v/c.
Now we come to a fundamental change in the way we view
mass "m" in the above equations. The terms used to de-
scribe mass frequency become "programmable" from a
"carrier wave" standpoint, but notice that due to the
negative charge conjugation parity, there must be a
"negative mass frequency" involved. This happens to be
the point where a subharmonic of the phase conjugated
replica wave becomes the new carrier for the decompres-
sed EMF "fringefield" along the plane of polarization.
Since relative velocity, b, is only a ratio of relative
velocities =v/c, where actually, v can be said to equal
c+n, with n equal to either +dv and -dv, but not simul-
taneously, representing the upper and lower sideband
spectrums, we have established an interdependency be-
tween the near field and far field components w.r.t.
"hidden" mass frequency becoming a new fringfield mo-
mentum frequency.
This "hidden" mass frequency just happens to be the
"delivered mass" of space synchronous energy, described
earlier, as a mass-to-length transformation with the con-
ventional dimensions of Einsteinian Energy m(l**2)(t**-2)
becoming (l**3)(t**-2). This represents the fourth state
of matter with (p,iq)[1] representing the phase space, and
the common element between both p and iq being the electro-
magnetic coupling constant, calculated for each particular
Fermi plasma state, which varies for both electrons and
phonons, and is dependent upon the frequency and amplitude
of the probe beam, where p = momentum component of phasor
and iq = imaginary instantaneous charge component of phasor,
where p**2=m**2, which consists of one half of a 4-momentum
"p" that includes energy as part of its timelike component,
nue = wavelength, w = frequency = f, with 2nf = angular
(phased) w_ph, n = # rotations, h = Planck's constant, and
c = speed of light in vacuum.
Thus disassociated ions become "charged particles" at their
particular frequencies and intensities, and must crossover
a particular insulating medium, notably the QCD barrier,
that is within a particular relaxation time, that the
lightbodies, with their corresponding magnetosomes, which
are being "phase conjugated" a certain percentage of
the time.
All of the bioprogrammed infolded harmonics "subtract" a
certain percentage of the lightbodies while absorbing or-
gone energy as the side effect during this micro-time
period of phase conjugation. As an overall effect, all
BI-IV QCD Color Magnetic Force Field (10^-11cm - 10^-13cm)
is "stripped" from the hypertranslating "cube" (see ref.[2],
sp."color force") instantaneously contracting a coherent
phase propogation and direction of sonic vibration for
every single magnetosome in the human body.
Part of the process for achieving dissolution of the color
magnetic force field involves the fine tuning of the con-
nectivity between the metallic ions of the BI-IV diamond
crystal, achieved by Fortran analysis, with the use of
instructions, crystallographic, atom data, reflection data,
batches, wavelength, direction cosines, and modified
crystallographic specifications that include charge distri-
bution, 'unobserved' reflections, charging cycle, atom coor-
dinate location, and coordinate constraints for generating
the output of specific crystallographic polarizations for
the diamond lattice.
These polarizations are achieved through automatic detection
of the asymmetric units in polar space groups using Fourier
analysis. The program will help to identify where the specific
limitations are w.r.t. creating the most 'useful' crystallo-
graphic grain orientations, as well as incorporating thermo-
controls using the parameters of rigid bond and
interatomic distance.
The interaction of biological molecules, such as human
blood cells, which contain the DNA with their associated
magnetosomes and lightbodies, can be studied w.r.t. their
ability for rejuvination, in terms of tolerance levels of
disassociation, as well as their sensitivity to the various
types of affinity for infared-to-ultraviolet type QCD.
Labeling blood plasma cells with inorganic cellular probe
'quantum dots' that fluoresce when energized by specific
frequencies can help to de-luminate the harmful inten-
sities of Cerenkov radiation during hypertranslation and
restore the lightbody health contained in memory water.
Remember that it is not just a side effect but a supernat-
ural phenomenon that human DNA is the propogator of over-
all growth and self organization that, based upon the
programming instructions blood cells receive from DNA,
these processes can be shielded by a quaternic assembly
that mimics the same growth and self-organization
within the quaternic crystal, represented by a set of space
wave functions for the free ion is y_5 = R(r) Y_21 ,
y_4 = R(r) Y_20, y_3 = R(r) Y_11, y_2 = R(r) Y_10, y_1 =
R(r) Y_00, where R(r) is a function that depends on the
Hamiltonian of the ion, and Y2_1, Y_20, Y_11, Y_10, and
Y_00 are spherical harmonics for the polar angles q
and f. These polar angles are used in the relationship
of momentum representation in spherical
harmonic equations. More info can be found in [3].
This technology would reinvent an astronauts spacesuit
in terms of actually programming the environmental con-
ditions of a hypertranslating biofield from the inside
out. We can look more closely at the cellular level
for what happens intercellularly during hypertranslation
with the lightbodies.
no surrender
*****
Now you're dodging the question. Ran you right out of ideas, eh! Thought so.
Dennis
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Eric Chomko" <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
:news:8d5375cb-0167-45ae...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
:>
:> No, young fool, I do not make my living from oil. I do, however, benefit
:> from it, as do you.
:>
:
:There are better ways to get energy you old fart...
Oh, really? Name three...
:
:>
:> Let's see how you benefit from oil; we'll limit this educational lecture to
:> one item: your computer.
:>
:
:My computer is made from silicon, plastic and metal. So with plastics
:you have a point.
:
Plus all the energy to manufacture the bits, move it around to get it
to you, etc.
:
:>
:> -electricity comes into your home to operate it, plus provide the heat, AC,
:> humidity control, power for entertainment devices, etc. to make your life
:> safe and more comfortable.
:>
:
:Energy as in power to my home can come im many ways. Hyrdo-electric
:power being better than fossil fule burning.
:
And there isn't any more of that to be had. So all we have to do is
cut electricity use to 10% of current.
:
:>
:> -all the employees of the power company use electricity for the same
:> purposes.
:>
:
:Why not solar or wind power along with hydro-electric? Why burn fossil
:fuel and add to the existing greenhouse effect?
:
Because we can't generate 90% of our electrical needs with solar and
wind.
:
:>
:> -the computer, keyboard, speakers, printer, and monitor made from plastic,
:> derived from oil.
:>
:
:There are better ways of making plastic such as the use of organic
:matter such as corn.
:
Sorry, but that's just nuts.
:
:>
:> Now, where are you going to make a stand, and say no more oil for those
:> products, those services, those employees?
:>
:
:What percentage of a barrel of oil is used for plastic vs. gas and
:other forms of non-renewable energy that also causes pollution?
:
What are you going to replace gasoline with and where is the energy to
product THAT going to come from?
:
:>
:> Also, remember, the Unabomber (not unibomber, as you wrote it) lived in a
:> one room shack, was insane, and killed folks. That's the future you hope
:> for?
:
:No. I just want to get rid of oil as fast as possible due to it
:pollutant properties, other cleaner forms of energy to replace it,
:etc.
:*****
:Well, which source do you prefer that will give you the same level of
:energy?
:
Given the non-standard quoting style used in the article I'm
responding to, Lord knows who said what.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Michael Price
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:479a266f-6b58-4c9f...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> Do we really need another oil-chasing president?
>
> *****
> ]Have you given any thought as to just how inter-twined your life is with
> oil? Without it, you're up that creek the prophets speak of.
>
All the more reason to have the US government leave it alone.
Notice
how the oil price goes UP when the US intervenes in the middle east?
Historically the long term trend is for it to go DOWN (in real
terms).
>
> > Sooner or later, it was predicted that both the Beast and False
> > Prophet end up in the "Lake of Fire". Can anyone take a guess what
> > they
> > think consists of liquid form that's flammable?
>
> > There'd have to be a mini-revolution of sorts here in the U.S. amongst
> > the employees of companies themselves that produce the oil-based
> > derivatives (gasoline) in order to massively re-tool their industry.
>
> > For this, I would suggest a federal program that would assist the oil
> > companies in retraining and retooling for a gasoline-to-kerosene
> > makeover [1], while the automobile manufacturers retrain for replacing
> > the internal combustion engine with the nuclear powered type.
>
> > Stations that sell gasoline could make just as much profit selling
> > purified H-H-O that gets "cracked" as they do the gasoline.
>
> > Each of these industries would receive a tax credit for the expenses
> > incurred in retooling and retraining, the oil crisis would be solved,
> > and the human race would benefit the most.
>
> > [1] LOX/Kerosene is the major propellent of the Saturn V series
> > boosters, and a major supply of these vehicles for earth-to-orbit
> > technology would launch the country into a new space age.
> > Payload costs would drastically reduce. Space-entrepreneurs
> > would rekindle the promise markets, and the country would
> > enjoy the fruits of a major new industrial revolution.
P.O.W.
"no surrender" <no_sur...@never.net> wrote:
> My computer is made from silicon, plastic and metal. So with plastics
> you have a point.
Top Officer Calls US Forces "Stressed"
By Anne Flaherty
The Associated Press
Wednesday 06 February 2008
Washington - The military's top uniformed officer says U.S. forces
are "significantly stressed" by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while
simultaneously trying to stem the tide of violent extremism elsewhere.
"The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully
training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to
be ready to counter future threats," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in testimony prepared for delivery
Wednesday.
Mullen's stern warnings are likely to become welcome political
fodder for anti-war Democrats, who want legislation requiring that
troops spend more time at home between combat tours. Last year's efforts
to pass such a bill failed after intense lobbying by Defense Secretary
Robert Gates, who says it would do more harm than good and tie the hands
of military commanders.
Mullen and Gates were to testify Wednesday in separate hearings of
the House and Senate Armed Services committees. Copies of their prepared
remarks were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.
In their testimony, Gates and Mullen ask Congress to support a
$588.3 billion request for defense spending in the 2009 budget year,
which begins Oct. 1.
Of that amount, $70 billion would go toward war spending,
representing only a fraction of what the wars likely will cost. Defense
officials say the money is expected to last until early 2009, when the
next president takes over.
for the rest of the story; visit;
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_020608N.shtml
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails.
American
The primary has been TAINTED by the willful media promotion
of certain candidates who support welfare economics, with
all of the populist media culture getting dragged alongside.
It's the tyranny of the left, yet the "State" now falls under
the dictates of the lesser God of paternalistic mediocrity.
There is no special "knowledge" or "gnosis" that the REAL
God of this nation, (i.e., "Almighty") contains within just
a "few" of His people, like the Mandarins claim. "Special
knowledge" or "ideas" are a -launchpad- of PERSONAL
experience that require NO INTELLECTUAL INTERFACE
OF ANY KIND, because the "insight" or "enlightenment"
becomes the "evidence" that this kind of gnosis "exists".
Nationalists are dominionists who have become the full
time invalidators in seeking their full covering of their
national flags, or beginning to fondle their swords
(or guns) with a lust for more power. With false
guidance, they join with the hands (and not the hearts)
to commit to the Fed's marginalized Reserve Notes,
that is within the domain of the marketed reprobation
complex (esp. in the financial industries), and seek
further support from political opportunists whose claim
it is more to "license" the true Messiah rather than
"know" Him. With the national media, these false
leaders follow the "slick packaging" (wolves in
sheep's clothing), rather than the true intent and
meaning of the promises of Yahweh.
These political opportunists seek to gain their license
to rule by fear in establishing their popularity against
those who become convicted by the revelation of
intuitive truths;
They are playing upon the sum of all these fears. The
political opportunists seek to derive their own PAC support
from human specialists; they will become trapped by their
own marginalizations of compartmentalization, with their
own back-slidden marketable corruptions, representing the
lower nature of reward in the drive-by worship for the
carnal Christian.
Most humanists can only dull the lamp of scientific intuition
with greater levels of physical and mental abuse. The levels
of thought for the humanists are only further levels of
manipulation for thoughtless, programmed_androids, who
must exist at the mercy and beckoning call of the larger
political machine.
The large political machine (i.e., the 'Fed') also feeds
into all of its subsets, that become the tributaries of
the national fiscal policies of U.S. bureaucracy, in
public service, as well as indebtedness, to those whose
values and beliefs are for the future of this great nation.
Contemporarily speaking, big oil PAC government should
be discredited for not policing itself; Environmental groups
should be ashamed of themselves for overregulating the
number of additives in fuels; The Freedom of Information
Act ends privacy restrictions at death, but bureaucrats
won't oblige the release of information because they are
afraid it will hinder their PAC mentality with the
"ugly truth".
The deal with the satrap of the quick-fix has been cast:
When populist ignorance abounds, the "false" optimism
spun by liberalism "frames" the analyst's stock-in-trade.
Conservatives are "owed" an apology from these psycho-
analysts of the righteous works of the kingdom faithful.
We do not owe them, but they owe us at least seven times
seventy, NOT what they have already trampled asunder,
but what all of the time and money spent on diluting
the conservative movement has done to sequester the
financial uplifting and enhancement of revolutionary and
replacement technologies, to concrete-and-mortar, pork
barrel spending, for the lukewarm-at-large.
The root meaning of the word "man" comes from "Adam",
which is a combination of the word "Dam" meaning
"blood" (Hebrew), and the letter Aleph (Hebrew "A"),
which symbolizes the principle of life and death, or
"spark" of creation. The union of Aleph and Dam,
which results in "Adam", symbolizes a blood pact
established between man and YHWH, or Creator.
Since man could not live up to the expectation that
YHWH had given him, blood sacrifices were offered
on an altar by a high priest, and the offering became
an "incense offering" for the sins of the people.
These offerings were performed behind a veil that
separated the high priest from the rest of the people.
When Jesus Christ became crucified, the veil that
separated the high priest from the rest of the temple
became torn in half, signifying a new access to
the altar. The "altar" became the body of Christ
whilst the blood covenant between YHWH and MAN
became the once-and-for-all blood sacrifice of
Jesus, the Christ.
Zionists deny that Jesus was the Messiah for all time.
Their claim is that "Messiah has not come" because
they also deny the bosonic nature of the blood itself as
being "transdimensional" or "transuniversal".
This gap has already been closed by quantum physics.
The link to the transdimensional nature of the blood
sacrifice of Jesus Christ is validated by eyewitnesses
who "saw" the dead man, Jesus, walking around and
speaking to many others before He was "resurrected".
Leaving the Godhead or Creator out of the equation that
"Man is the measure of things important to man" results in
"Man is his own God"! Therefore, all of the insinuations
based on the Origin of Species and Darwin's theory of
evolution for man are *heretical* in the light of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This "uniqueness" in the body of believers creates anew
through the renewing of the total mindset, not only a
physiological renewal, but the renewal of the creative
and imaginative thought process involved with ALL the
Kingdom mentality of believers.
Thus any other ideas seeking to replace the Kingdom
mindset with an agreement between lying parties of the
"establishment" will be discredited and disregarded in
favor of the blood covenant of Jesus Christ.
American
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary
for one people to dissolve the political bands which
have connected them with another and to assume among
the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind
requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation."
- First line of the Declaration of Independence
Joe Blow
> The "State" has no business with a people of SOVEREIGNITY.
> The primary has been TAINTED by the willful media promotion
***
.......A whole lot of religious rantings snipped out of here....
> Thus any other ideas seeking to replace the Kingdom
> mindset with an agreement between lying parties of the
> "establishment" will be discredited and disregarded in
> favor of the blood covenant of Jesus Christ.
>
> American
***
Thanks for the microscopic, if not myopic, examination of the beast, Rabbi.
But this is a political forum. In light of that, what do you think we should
do about the state of the State? Disregard politics in favor of religion?
Anyway, I asked before, where can I get some of what it is you're smoking?
Joe Blow
*******************************************
Original Post:
"American" <samuel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6a1ad1b7-496c-4a45...@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
American
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6a1ad1b7-496c-4a45...@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The "State" has no business with a people of SOVEREIGNITY.
> > The primary has been TAINTED by the willful media promotion
>
> ***
> .......A whole lot of religious rantings snipped out of here....
>
> > Thus any other ideas seeking to replace the Kingdom
> > mindset with an agreement between lying parties of the
> > "establishment" will be discredited and disregarded in
> > favor of the blood covenant of Jesus Christ.
>
> > American
>
> ***
> Thanks for the microscopic, if not myopic, examination of the beast, Rabbi.
> But this is a political forum. In light of that, what do you think we should
> do about the state of the State? Disregard politics in favor of religion?
>
> Anyway, I asked before, where can I get some of what it is you're smoking?
>
> Joe Blow
>
individuals, and I'll bet that the majority of those individuals
received their grants from government, and not private
industry. Deal?
American
Joe Blow
>
You tell me what's so "myopic" about certain "gifted"
individuals, and I'll bet that the majority of those individuals
received their grants from government, and not private
industry. Deal?
American
***
Depends on what you consider private industry. Words are such rubbery
things, don't 'cha think? Does private industry include churches?
If you want me to say that crackpots abound in the public sector, I'll say,
"sure, no doubt about it. Along with everything else. For all I know, you're
living proof." So I guess your bet is off.
You consider yourself "gifted?" I think you need to focus and stop smoking
that shit.
JB
American
: Depends on what you consider private industry.
: Words are such rubbery things, don't 'cha think?
: Does private industry include churches?
:
Not churches, but the faithful, and the good stewards
of the faith, are supposed to make up the "community".
It's not the same America that existed pre-WWII, yet
the "war" is being played on our own turf, with our own
system of government unable to stem the tide of
refugees, or endorse the exploration and exploitation
of our "extraterrestrial frontier", in order to benefit
a way of life and new standard of living for all mankind.
Americans must learn to create special circumstances
that allow them to "break the rules" of the game that is
being played on us by liberalism. We must teach the
old dog of liberal democracy the new trick of obedience
to logical solution. "Impossible" to them only means
that they don't understand the solution.
Come to think of it, a woman president might serve
us better than all of the hammerheads that we've been
getting - but I don't think "Hillary" comes even close
to being conservative. What ever happened to the
righteous women e.g. Golda Meir and Jean Kirkpatrick?
"Women need to start thinking in some of the same
terms that men do about the same issues. Their voting
and political agenda should be grounded in philosophy
and logic and the cornerstones of our Republic, the
Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence."
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39ab4d4d31b4.htm
The whole 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever party system is
run amok with stupid, pandering, brown-nosed PACS
that can no more push an energy replacement
technology than they can roll a shopping cart over
their own feet and call it "progress".
Sure, their human minds use inadequate resources
as an excuse to stop thinking about solutions, because
too much emphasis is placed on the "here and now".
IMO, the "here and now" means short term profits,
financially marketed credit card debts, and the out-
of-control military industrial establishment - yet
this "house of cards" becomes crashed down on OUR
economy and OUR promise markets - doesn't
matter where the dollars are being spent - anyone
who is a part of the "debtors note system" must
automatically become part of the problem for
all the lukewarm voting bloc, and not part of a
short, or even long-term solution.
Who's going to step in again to solve this problem,
the Fed? If it's still the Fed, then the problem becomes
even more exacerbated.
: If you want me to say that crackpots abound in the
: public sector, I'll say, "sure, no doubt about it.
: Along with everything else. For all I know, you're
: living proof." So I guess your bet is off.
:
As for myself, I'm no more in the public sector than
a donkey has wings - strange thing is, according to
the politics of a welfare state, the "lion" is supposed
to lay down with the "lamb", and that's a form of
humanist, "false" dominionism as far as I'm concerned.
Christ has not returned yet, but all of these create-
another-government-program types would try to
have one believe otherwise.
: You consider yourself "gifted?" I think you need
: to focus and stop smoking that shit.
:
As a matter of fact, I AM, although there are certain
facilities that must remain private (and also sequestered)
in order to enhance the gift for all (of the connected)
to enjoy.
: JB
American
Joe Blow
> On Feb 6, 6:39 pm, "Joe Blow" <spam-me-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> It's not the same America that existed pre-WWII, yet
> the "war" is being played on our own turf, with our own
> system of government unable to stem the tide of
> refugees, or endorse the exploration and exploitation
> of our "extraterrestrial frontier", in order to benefit
> a way of life and new standard of living for all mankind.
Well Rabbi, it sounds like you want to set the controls for Alpha Centauri.
First star on the right, straight on 'till morning. But I don't really
think that's going to happen anytime soon.
>
> Americans must learn to create special circumstances
> that allow them to "break the rules" of the game that is
> being played on us by liberalism. We must teach the
> old dog of liberal democracy the new trick of obedience
> to logical solution. "Impossible" to them only means
> that they don't understand the solution.
***
Which of course, you do. Do tell.
> Come to think of it, a woman president might serve
> us better than all of the hammerheads that we've been
> getting - but I don't think "Hillary" comes even close
> to being conservative. What ever happened to the
> righteous women e.g. Golda Meir and Jean Kirkpatrick?
***
Golda went to the Big Kibbutz in the Sky a while back, Jean might have
started up helping Ronnie Reagan with his speeches again in between harp
lessons. IOW, both dead. You didn't know?
> The whole 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever party system is
> run amok with stupid, pandering, brown-nosed PACS
> that can no more push an energy replacement
> technology than they can roll a shopping cart over
> their own feet and call it "progress".
***
Essentially, it's a two party system. Just thought you'd like to know. When
did you land? Where's the mother ship? Buried in a swamp somewhere? Did
Lassie find you and come tell Timmy?
> Sure, their human minds use inadequate resources
> as an excuse to stop thinking about solutions, because
> too much emphasis is placed on the "here and now".
***
Yes human minds do use thoughts for thinking. That's very astute. But I get
this creepy feeling that you're going to tell us there is another way of
doing it. I just hope it doesn't involve duct tape or tin foil.
> IMO, the "here and now" means short term profits,
> financially marketed credit card debts, and the out-
> of-control military industrial establishment - yet
> this "house of cards" becomes crashed down on OUR
> economy and OUR promise markets - doesn't
> matter where the dollars are being spent - anyone
> who is a part of the "debtors note system" must
> automatically become part of the problem for
> all the lukewarm voting bloc, and not part of a
> short, or even long-term solution.
***
You should talk to the Japanese. They seem to have some good ideas about
this sort of thing. Of course it's a lot easier for them, being a
mono-ethnic culture.
> Who's going to step in again to solve this problem,
> the Fed? If it's still the Fed, then the problem becomes
> even more exacerbated.
***
Here I thought you had something in mind, Rabbi.
Joe Blow
American
:: "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
:: It's not the same America that existed pre-WWII, yet
:: the "war" is being played on our own turf, with our own
:: system of government unable to stem the tide of
:: refugees, or endorse the exploration and exploitation
:: of our "extraterrestrial frontier", in order to benefit
:: a way of life and new standard of living for all mankind.
::
: ***
: Well Rabbi, it sounds like you want to set the controls for
: Alpha Centauri. First star on the right, straight on 'till
: morning. But I don't really think that's going to happen
: anytime soon.
:
Which is why we've got to create markets in order to justify
the cost of sending people into different parts of the solar
system, particularly to LEO, L1, and *certain* asteroids.
This is where devices like germanium scintillator detectors
can be deorbited for an asteroid flyby situated at some height,
let's say H_z above an asteroid, and SAR is used to obtain
gamma ray spectrum N(E)from the regolith layer containing
natural radionuclides. Using experimental data, the parameters
of transition frequency metals distribution in regolith and
the concentration of the naturally occurring isotopes can be
calculated. All this for a sequential follow-up for mining
and extracting metallic components for refining and smelting,
and eventually returned to LEO for shaping and assembly of
structural components.
:: Americans must learn to create special circumstances
:: that allow them to "break the rules" of the game that is
:: being played on us by liberalism. We must teach the
:: old dog of liberal democracy the new trick of obedience
:: to logical solution. "Impossible" to them only means
:: that they don't understand the solution.
:
: ***
: Which of course, you do. Do tell.
:
I have a design for the aft section of a the robotic mining
and cargo vessel that can be used to propel the development
for future missions to the asteroids. A total of six power
plants control the operation of various components, including
the drilling, trolley, and refining operations.
I have also developed an architectural design for the thrust
framing for the cargo vessel fuselage, fuel cell assembly,
and cryogenic supply system. This system uses general
loading analysis technique for the thrust axial loading, inertial
axial loading, and axial flux distribution. A 3-D structural
code is constructed for the space frame program in Fortran.
The axial flux distribution due to thruster loading is
dependent upon the design and stiffness of the thrust ring
and fuel cell structure. An iteration method for estimating
sizing uses a Fortran space frame analysis developed by
myself. The number of joints in the space truss will yield
3 times as many equations for each summation of forces in
the x, y, and z directions. Each element is assumed to have
axial, bending, and torsional stiffness.
Coding for data entry into the program is currently being
investigated so that a follow-up temperature distribution
analysis can be performed.
The only thing holding this project back is just like
anything else - lack of time because of overburdening,
underpaid job prospects on the horizon, as well as the
public climate of opposition to anything focused on the
disruption of the precious metals markets - a moot issue
if all of the industry is to go "orbital".
: ***
: Essentially, it's a two party system. Just thought you'd
: like to know. When did you land? Where's the mother ship?
: Buried in a swamp somewhere? Did Lassie find you and
: come tell Timmy?
:
Are you blind or what? Essentially, you're forgetting the
Libertarian party. Really, though, it all depends on who
the biggest donors are, and if Goldman Sachs or Bear Stearns
want to support you, there you have it. The rest is just
play acting, if your media probes have been calibrated
just right.
::
:: Sure, their human minds use inadequate resources
:: as an excuse to stop thinking about solutions, because
:: too much emphasis is placed on the "here and now".
::
: ***
: Yes human minds do use thoughts for thinking. That's very
: astute. But I get this creepy feeling that you're going
: to tell us there is another way of doing it. I just hope
: it doesn't involve duct tape or tin foil.
:
Ever seen the movie "Videodrome"? I'm beginning to believe
here that utimately, X-box or Playstation will control the
mind by tapping into the pleasure centers. Skullcaps and
bodysuits with electrodes really aren't that far off.
By then, you're own consciousness will be remotely sensed
and used to tab the market potential as a "dependophobe".
::
:: IMO, the "here and now" means short term profits,
:: financially marketed credit card debts, and the out-
:: of-control military industrial establishment - yet
:: this "house of cards" becomes crashed down on OUR
:: economy and OUR promise markets - doesn't
:: matter where the dollars are being spent - anyone
:: who is a part of the "debtors note system" must
:: automatically become part of the problem for
:: all the lukewarm voting bloc, and not part of a
:: short, or even long-term solution.
::
: ***
: You should talk to the Japanese. They seem to have
: some good ideas about this sort of thing. Of course it's
: a lot easier for them, being a mono-ethnic culture.
:
If the Star Wars bar scene is your idea of multi-ethnic,
then I've got news for you - the Chinese are coming!
::
:: Who's going to step in again to solve this problem,
:: the Fed? If it's still the Fed, then the problem becomes
:: even more exacerbated.
:
: ***
: Here I thought you had something in mind, Rabbi.
:
Yeah, I did have something in mind... How about a Vulcan
mind probe? hahahaha
:
American
:
: Joe Blow
Joe Blow
> On Feb 6, 9:09 pm, "Joe Blow" <spam-me-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> :: of our "extraterrestrial frontier", in order to benefit
> :: a way of life and new standard of living for all mankind.
> ::
> : ***
> :
> Yeah, I did have something in mind... How about a Vulcan
> mind probe? hahahaha
> :
> American
***
Great stuff Rabbi, but well beyond the attention span of most souls here.
Anyway stick to fiction. Politics really isn't your thing.
You have a nice day,
Joe Blow
American
> "American" <samuelran...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Are we amusing ourselves with the easy wind of thy own
market philosophy or are we stuck to ourselves so much
that our brown noses never see the light of day?
-
American
for the bubblegum guy, Jeez.
Hey Joe, what's so special about having an opinion?
<no answer>
Joe, the special "listener" gets big credit for having an
opinion that's based purely on rhetoric, without substance.
Have we heard anything of value or complaint other than
calling people "rabbi" and "stick to fiction"?
Where's the dissent, Joe? Where is the forum for
all that pretended dissent?
<Joe Blow the slacker has no response>
Joe Blow is completely content with the system of government
that we inherit, come hell or high water, Joe Blow is in full
agreement with whatever McCain inherits from the Bush
administration.
Joe Blow must go.
-
Governor Swill
babble
>:Why not solar or wind power along with hydro-electric? Why burn fossil
>:fuel and add to the existing greenhouse effect?
>:
>
>Because we can't generate 90% of our electrical needs with solar and
>wind.
We don't need to. We have nuclear, coal and a plethora of other
sources. Yet that line of reasoning fails to address the number one
way of dealing with our energy needs. Learning to use less.
Swill
Governor Swill
>:matter such as corn.
>:
>
>Sorry, but that's just nuts.
No, it's not. Cellulose is useful in materials applications. Coal
can also be used to develop replacements for petroleum based chemicals
and materials.
Swill
Governor Swill
>:other forms of non-renewable energy that also causes pollution?
>:
>
>What are you going to replace gasoline with and where is the energy to
>product THAT going to come from?
How about foot power? How about we start evolving our living and
working patterns to ones requiring less energy? When I was a kid,
there were sidewalks most places and always a store within easy
walking distance.
We've paid a price for economies of scale.
Swill
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:
Typical bilge.
Ok, let's measure it by tying productivity to carbon output, then. Now
you can leave the US alone for a long, long time. You'd get a huge
reduction in CO2 output just by requiring China to be as efficient as
the United States. More big gains to be had by requiring the same of
India and Russia.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:babble
:>:There are better ways of making plastic such as the use of organic
:>:matter such as corn.
:>:
:>
:>Sorry, but that's just nuts.
:
:No, it's not. Cellulose is useful in materials applications.
:
Yeah it is. Cellulose isn't plastic. He didn't say replace plastic.
He said make plastic out of corn. That's just nuts.
:
:Coal
:can also be used to develop replacements for petroleum based chemicals
:and materials.
:
Much harder and less energy efficient and coal is not corn.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:
But not really. Do the energy balance of having lots of little
neighborhood stores and having to stock them all (which takes energy
to ship all those goods) vs having fewer, larger (but more efficient)
stores.
If we have to make a decision to do it, as you suggest above, it's not
'evolving' at all. Things evolve naturally (which is how we got to
where we are). MANDATING change is not 'evolving'.
gaby de wilde
>
> "There is no security in this life. There is
> only opportunity."
> - Douglas MacArthur
You are right but I had a different plan.
Lets build self grown infrastructure up there. 100% robotic!
If 1 guy at NASA can drive the mars rover then that means we can all
be drones operators.
Then, lets not forget our mining expeditions.
The first few thousand tons should be used to harvest resources.
This should be a 100% drone operation.
Then when we produce something like a drone of each kind per week we
can start building habitats for humanoids.
A flying aircraft carrier can allow for 2 separate kinds of crafts.
It's just a big zeppelin platform. Some runway and a net or a cable,
just like any aircraft carrier.
Taxi over the edge to take off :)
When we make the shuttles good enough eventually the old B52's should
be enough to launch em.
It should not have to be limited to linear growth. It can grow very
exponential. In fact, everything we build will have a clear purpose.
This is very unlike the way we do things on earth.
____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?tag=spacetravel
Governor Swill
>:>wind.
>:>
>:
>:We don't need to. We have nuclear, coal and a plethora of other
>:sources. Yet that line of reasoning fails to address the number one
>:way of dealing with our energy needs. Learning to use less.
>:
>
>Typical bilge.
>
>Ok, let's measure it by tying productivity to carbon output, then. Now
>you can leave the US alone for a long, long time. You'd get a huge
>reduction in CO2 output just by requiring China to be as efficient as
>the United States. More big gains to be had by requiring the same of
>India and Russia.
Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
In any case, I'm not worried much about it one way or another. If the
GW crowd is right, nature will achieve the necessary balance.
Swill
Governor Swill
>:
>
>Yeah it is. Cellulose isn't plastic. He didn't say replace plastic.
>He said make plastic out of corn. That's just nuts.
You're quibbling over definitions. What we call plastic is polymers.
Polymers can be derived using cellulose.
Swill
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:babble
:>:>Because we can't generate 90% of our electrical needs with solar and
:>:>wind.
:>:>
:>:
:>:We don't need to. We have nuclear, coal and a plethora of other
:>:sources. Yet that line of reasoning fails to address the number one
:>:way of dealing with our energy needs. Learning to use less.
:>:
:>
:>Typical bilge.
:>
:>Ok, let's measure it by tying productivity to carbon output, then. Now
:>you can leave the US alone for a long, long time. You'd get a huge
:>reduction in CO2 output just by requiring China to be as efficient as
:>the United States. More big gains to be had by requiring the same of
:>India and Russia.
:
:Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
:
You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
right?
:
:In any case, I'm not worried much about it one way or another. If the
:GW crowd is right, nature will achieve the necessary balance.
:
Nature will always achieve the necessary balance. However, she may do
it by expunging the human race...
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:babble
:>:No, it's not. Cellulose is useful in materials applications.
:>:
:>
:>Yeah it is. Cellulose isn't plastic. He didn't say replace plastic.
:>He said make plastic out of corn. That's just nuts.
:
:You're quibbling over definitions.
:
No, I'm quibbling over FACTS.
:
:What we call plastic is polymers.
:
As are a number of other things that we don't call plastic. You can
call a tail a leg, but a dog still only has 4 legs.
:
:Polymers can be derived using cellulose.
:
Cellulose is a SUBSTITUTE for plastic. It is not plastic. Yes, you
can use high quality cellulose as an ingredient in some types of
plastic. However, try doing that with no petroleum additives of any
kind. Also, that sort of cellulose doesn't come from corn. It comes
from trees.
The chemical industry in general is highly dependent on petroleum
derivatives.
Governor Swill
>:
>
>You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
>right?
It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
>:In any case, I'm not worried much about it one way or another. If the
>:GW crowd is right, nature will achieve the necessary balance.
>:
>
>Nature will always achieve the necessary balance. However, she may do
>it by expunging the human race...
Too bad for us being so greedy with our consumerist society.
Swill
Governor Swill
>can use high quality cellulose as an ingredient in some types of
>plastic. However, try doing that with no petroleum additives of any
>kind. Also, that sort of cellulose doesn't come from corn. It comes
>from trees.
>
>The chemical industry in general is highly dependent on petroleum
>derivatives.
It can be taken from many plants including hemp and corn stalks and
cobs. Many chemicals can be derived from coal as well. Oil has been
cheap and convenient. When coal orientated technologies get rolling,
they'll be cheap and convenient.
Swill
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:babble
:>:Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
:>:
:>
:>You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
:>right?
:
:It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
:don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
:
Ah, I see. So it *doesn't* make any sense, since that is precisely
what I suggested.
:>:In any case, I'm not worried much about it one way or another. If the
:>:GW crowd is right, nature will achieve the necessary balance.
:>:
:>
:>Nature will always achieve the necessary balance. However, she may do
:>it by expunging the human race...
:
:Too bad for us being so greedy with our consumerist society.
:
Or perhaps we could just shoot the stupid trolls?
Here's your ticket...
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:
Go take some chemistry courses.
Joe Blow
> ...And all along I thought that people like "Joe Blow" was a cover
> for the bubblegum guy, Jeez.
Gosh, you found me out. You must have been reading all those teeny comics,
that are wrapped around the gum, all along. Is that where you get your
material? Some funny shit, Rabbi.
> Hey Joe, what's so special about having an opinion?
***
Well you obviously are only pretending to have one here, but that can just
remain our little secret.
> Joe, the special "listener" gets big credit for having an
> opinion that's based purely on rhetoric, without substance.
> Have we heard anything of value or complaint other than
> calling people "rabbi" and "stick to fiction"?
***
Like I said before, maybe "politics" isn't your stride. Then again, maybe
"language" really isn't either. Your inability to focus on both a subject
and a predicate in the same sentence is sort of a giveaway to that. Perhaps
you can just find a good porn site and go back to your masturbation.
JB
Rand Simberg
Swill <governo...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
>babble
>>:Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
>>:
>>
>>You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
>>right?
>
>It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
>don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
No, it's smart. If "working to reduce GW" entails damaging our
economy (and it does), and India and China are going to cause it to
happen regardless of what we do, then it would be stupid of us to do
it.
Alain Fournier
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:49:33 -0500, in a place far, far away, Governor
> Swill <governo...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
>>babble
>>
>>>:Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
>>>:
>>>
>>>You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
>>>right?
>>
>>It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
>>don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
>
>
> No, it's smart. If "working to reduce GW" entails damaging our
> economy (and it does)
You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
damage the economy? Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
Alain Fournier
Rand Simberg
Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:49:33 -0500, in a place far, far away, Governor
>> Swill <governo...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>
>>>Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
>>>babble
>>>
>>>>:Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
>>>>:
>>>>
>>>>You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
>>>>right?
>>>
>>>It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
>>>don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
>>
>>
>> No, it's smart. If "working to reduce GW" entails damaging our
>> economy (and it does)
>
>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>damage the economy?
If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
savings. And you don't know how Germany's economy would be doing if
they had had different policies. Not to mention that their economy
isn't all that "fine."
Joe Blow
news:47d7523a....@news.giganews.com...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:15:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>damage the economy?
>
> If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
> the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
***
Not necessarily. If more people are gainfully employed, in say, a newly
created industry such as environmental science and its application, or solar
power research and management, they become less of a social liability while
the whole economy grows overall. And in this case not only grows, but grows
in a more sustainable way.
Where will your busniness model be in a hundred years? Oh, that's right;
Neocons don't care about their own grandchildren. You guys are like frogs,
spraying your eggs all over the pond and hoping for the best, or maybe even
divine intervention. How do you say it again? "Let God sort 'em out," or
some such quasi-religious claptrap.
>
>>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
***
Germany's economy is much more healthy and robust than the US economy has
been for some time. Unlike the US, which is the world's largest importer,
Germany exports one-third of its national output. In paying attention to
environmental issues, Germany has an eye to its own economic future and
national best interests, well beyond the next quarterly report.
>
> Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
> savings. And you don't know how Germany's economy would be doing if
> they had had different policies. Not to mention that their economy
> isn't all that "fine."
***
You're welcome to provide some details about the difficulty the German
economy is currently experiencing, at least so that everyone can get some
idea just what the devil you're talking about. To be fair, you might
compare those same difficulties in other countries, such as, say, the United
States. Extra credit if you can show how these difficulties are unique to
Germany, particularly with regard to their evironmental policy.
Joe Blow
Rand Simberg
<spam-...@nowhere.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:47d7523a....@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:15:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
>> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>>damage the economy?
>>
>> If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
>> the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>***
>Not necessarily. If more people are gainfully employed, in say, a newly
>created industry such as environmental science and its application, or solar
>power research and management, they become less of a social liability while
>the whole economy grows overall.
Not if their "employment" is a drag on the economy. There's a
difference between creating jobs, and creating wealth.
>And in this case not only grows, but grows
>in a more sustainable way.
>
>Where will your busniness model be in a hundred years? Oh, that's right;
>Neocons don't care about their own grandchildren.
You know, I quit reading when I get to nonsense like this. Like
"fascist," the more often someone uses the word "neocon," the less
likely they are to even know what the word means. And for the record,
I'm not one.
<snip>
Joe Blow
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:20:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Joe Blow"
> <spam-...@nowhere.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
>>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>>news:47d7523a....@news.giganews.com...
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:15:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
>>> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>
>>>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>>>damage the economy?
>>>
>>> If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
>>> the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>>***
>>Not necessarily. If more people are gainfully employed, in say, a newly
>>created industry such as environmental science and its application, or
>>solar
>>power research and management, they become less of a social liability
>>while
>>the whole economy grows overall.
>
> Not if their "employment" is a drag on the economy. There's a
> difference between creating jobs, and creating wealth.
First, you're ignoring the sustainability factor. Within a century, we're
going to run out of oil. Period. Second, it all depends on what you care to
define as wealth. Oil barons don't define anything as wealth, if it didn't
first come out of the ground. A company designing wind turbines, on the
other hand, would see a steady breeze as the bearer of wealth. There were
people in business, much like yourself, who said the telephone would never
be of any practical use either.
Third, the fact remains completely unchallenged by you, that Germany's
economy is doing very well, thank you, while the US economy by comparison,
and in spite of all its relative ignorance of environmental issues, is not
so hot.
>>Neocons don't care about their own grandchildren.
>
> You know, I quit reading when I get to nonsense like this. Like
> "fascist," the more often someone uses the word "neocon," the less
> likely they are to even know what the word means. And for the record,
> I'm not one.
***
I suppose you do. And some people still prefer to watch wide screen feature
films at home in 4/3 television format on their good ol' B&W Philco, because
even though they don't get all the information, they think it better fits
their point of view. Also, they don't like to be reminded that their point
of view might be outmoded or obsolete. You might try to stop banging your
head on the inside of the box.
So, what have you done for your grandchildren, lately? I mean perhaps
beyond leaving them a pile of money they will only squander in short order?
Let me ask the question again. Where will your business model be in a
hundred years?
JB
Rand Simberg
We will never run out of oil. Period.
Long before we run out, it will be made obsolete by a cheaper form of
energy.
>Second, it all depends on what you care to
>define as wealth.
Like economists, I define wealth as what people are willing to pay for
in a free market.
>Oil barons don't define anything as wealth, if it didn't
>first come out of the ground.
Nonsense.
>A company designing wind turbines, on the
>other hand, would see a steady breeze as the bearer of wealth.
Who said otherwise?
>There were
>people in business, much like yourself, who said the telephone would never
>be of any practical use either.
No, no one like me ever said that, as far as I know.
>Third, the fact remains completely unchallenged by you, that Germany's
>economy is doing very well, thank you, while the US economy by comparison,
>and in spite of all its relative ignorance of environmental issues, is not
>so hot.
"Most foreign and German experts agree that there are/ were domestic
structural problems to be addressed. Beginning in 2003, the government
gradually deregulated the labour market to tackle formerly high
unemployment. As a result employment levels are on the upswing and the
unemployment rate fell to 7.3% (August 2007) in West-Germany. The
situation in post-communist East-Germany remains problematic at 14.7%.
The overall unemployment rate was 8.8%. By ILO standards, the
unemployment rate was lower, at 8.1% (September 2007 figure).[3]
Further issues, which are being addressed by governmental policies,
are high non-wage labour costs and bureaucratic regulations that
burden businesses and the process of starting new businesses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany
I'll take our growth and unemployment rate over theirs, any time, and
twice on Sunday.
>>>Neocons don't care about their own grandchildren.
>>
>> You know, I quit reading when I get to nonsense like this. Like
>> "fascist," the more often someone uses the word "neocon," the less
>> likely they are to even know what the word means. And for the record,
>> I'm not one.
>***
>I suppose you do. And some people still prefer to watch wide screen feature
>films at home in 4/3 television format on their good ol' B&W Philco, because
>even though they don't get all the information, they think it better fits
>their point of view. Also, they don't like to be reminded that their point
>of view might be outmoded or obsolete. You might try to stop banging your
>head on the inside of the box.
And then again, maybe I'm doing just fine.
>
>So, what have you done for your grandchildren, lately? I mean perhaps
>beyond leaving them a pile of money they will only squander in short order?
>
>Let me ask the question again. Where will your business model be in a
>hundred years?
I don't expect to have a "business model" in a hundred years. I
didn't answer the question because it's an idiotic one.
Joe Blow
> We will never run out of oil. Period.
>
> Long before we run out, it will be made obsolete by a cheaper form of
> energy.
***
Other than that your second statement completely contradicts your first, I
think we could agree that making oil, or other forms of finite fossil fuel,
obsolete, is the task at hand.
>
>>Second, it all depends on what you care to
>>define as wealth.
>
> Like economists, I define wealth as what people are willing to pay for
> in a free market.
***
What ARE people willing to pay for in a free market? Are there only simple
answers? Are you still only thinking in terms of commodities and quarterly
reports?
>>There were
>>people in business, much like yourself, who said the telephone would never
>>be of any practical use either.
>
> No, no one like me ever said that, as far as I know.
***
Ignorance is bliss. It may give you pause to know that better minds than
your own are at work on this.
***
No. You personally will not. The question was not "where will you be in a
hundred years?" was it? Anyway, I guess your legacy doesn't concern you
much. For all their professed religiosity, you'd think conservatives would
care for something more beyond their own time, personal comfort and rotten
little lives.
Joe Blow
Rand Simberg
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:47da706b....@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>> We will never run out of oil. Period.
>>
>> Long before we run out, it will be made obsolete by a cheaper form of
>> energy.
>***
>Other than that your second statement completely contradicts your first,
Not at all. They are entirely consistent.
>I think we could agree that making oil, or other forms of finite fossil fuel,
>obsolete, is the task at hand.
It's not "the task at hand." It's simply inevitable.
>>>Second, it all depends on what you care to
>>>define as wealth.
>>
>> Like economists, I define wealth as what people are willing to pay for
>> in a free market.
>***
>What ARE people willing to pay for in a free market?
All manner of things. You apparently don't get out much.
>Are there only simple answers? Are you still only thinking in terms of commodities and quarterly
>reports?
No.
>>>There were
>>>people in business, much like yourself, who said the telephone would never
>>>be of any practical use either.
>>
>> No, no one like me ever said that, as far as I know.
>***
>Ignorance is bliss. It may give you pause to know that better minds than
>your own are at work on this.
Glad to hear it. Why would that give me "pause"?
<snip unchallenged response to Germany's economic status>
>>>So, what have you done for your grandchildren, lately? I mean perhaps
>>>beyond leaving them a pile of money they will only squander in short
>>>order?
>>>
>>>Let me ask the question again. Where will your business model be in a
>>>hundred years?
>>
>> I don't expect to have a "business model" in a hundred years. I
>> didn't answer the question because it's an idiotic one.
>***
>No. You personally will not. The question was not "where will you be in a
>hundred years?" was it?
If I'm not going to be around in a hundred years, what use would I
have for a "business model"?
>Anyway, I guess your legacy doesn't concern you
>much. For all their professed religiosity, you'd think conservatives would
>care for something more beyond their own time, personal comfort and rotten
>little lives.
I'm an agnostic. And I'm not a conservative.
I'm always amused at the idiotic assumptions that people make. It's
why they so often look foolish on Usenet.
Fred J. McCall
:
:First, you're ignoring the sustainability factor. Within a century, we're
Oh? Prove it.
Hint: We've had about 30 years worth of oil for about the last 70
years or so.
:
:Second, it all depends on what you care to
:define as wealth.
:
'Wealth' is already defined. Calling a tail a leg creates very few
5-legged dogs.
:
:Oil barons don't define anything as wealth, if it didn't
:first come out of the ground.
:
Cite? Or is this just an insane lie on your part?
:
:A company designing wind turbines, on the
:other hand, would see a steady breeze as the bearer of wealth.
:
Nope. They see selling the turbines as a bearer of wealth.
:
:There were
:people in business, much like yourself, who said the telephone would never
:be of any practical use either.
:
Cite? Or is this just an insane lie on your part?
:
:Third, the fact remains completely unchallenged by you, that Germany's
:economy is doing very well, thank you, while the US economy by comparison,
:and in spite of all its relative ignorance of environmental issues, is not
:so hot.
:
Well, no. Perhaps you should look at a few actual numbers?
2007
German GDP growth - 3.2%
US GDP growth - 5.2%
You figure it out...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Alain Fournier
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:15:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:49:33 -0500, in a place far, far away, Governor
>>>Swill <governo...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>>>in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
>>>>babble
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>:Why should we if they don't? Sounds like a cop out to me.
>>>>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>You do realize that that response makes absolutely no sense at all,
>>>>>right?
>>>>
>>>>It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
>>>>don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's smart. If "working to reduce GW" entails damaging our
>>>economy (and it does)
>>
>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>damage the economy?
>
>
> If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
> the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
And if you spend less for the same amount of energy to accomplish the
same purposes, you will have stronger economic growth. Here in Quebec
we are building wind farms for the purpose of selling electricity to
the coal burners at our south, and doing so at a handsome profit.
>>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
>
>
> Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
> savings.
Being more efficient is usually a winning strategy.
Alain Fournier
Rand Simberg
Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>>damage the economy?
>>
>>
>> If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
>> the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>
>And if you spend less for the same amount of energy to accomplish the
>same purposes, you will have stronger economic growth. Here in Quebec
>we are building wind farms for the purpose of selling electricity to
>the coal burners at our south, and doing so at a handsome profit.
Yes. Isn't that nice for you. Not everyone has the room and the wind
for wind farms, and wind farms can only provide a tiny portion of the
total power needs. So I'm not sure what your point is.
>>>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>>>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>>>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
>>
>>
>> Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
>> savings.
>
>Being more efficient is usually a winning strategy.
No, not "usually"--only when it makes economic sense.
I could buy a hybrid vehicle that would double my fuel mileage, but it
would cost me much more than the gasoline I'd save.
Alain Fournier
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:26:21 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>>>damage the economy?
>>>
>>>
>>>If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
>>>the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>>
>>And if you spend less for the same amount of energy to accomplish the
>>same purposes, you will have stronger economic growth. Here in Quebec
>>we are building wind farms for the purpose of selling electricity to
>>the coal burners at our south, and doing so at a handsome profit.
>
>
> Yes. Isn't that nice for you. Not everyone has the room and the wind
> for wind farms, and wind farms can only provide a tiny portion of the
> total power needs. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Wind farms can provide more than a tiny portion of the total power needs.
Nuclear power can also provide power at a handsome profit. My point is
that I'm not sure what your point is when you say: "if you spend less
for the same amount of energy to accomplish the same purposes, you will
have stronger economic growth". We weren't talking about spending more
for the same amount of energy. We were talking about reducing greenhouse
gases. Of course it is possible to do so by spending more for the same
amount of energy, but you don't have to do that. Also, if you add in the
the cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere, it can make sense
at the macroeconomics level to pay more for the same amount of energy.
>>>>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>>>>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>>>>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
>>>savings.
>>
>>Being more efficient is usually a winning strategy.
>
>
> No, not "usually"--only when it makes economic sense.
>
> I could buy a hybrid vehicle that would double my fuel mileage, but it
> would cost me much more than the gasoline I'd save.
That depends on your driving habits. For many people buying the hybrid
makes economic sense. If you had to pay for the damage you do to the
environment by spewing CO2 into it, that would make it yet more likely
that the hybrid would make economic sense. It certainly made economic
sense for Toyota to invest in the technology.
Alain Fournier
Rand Simberg
Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:26:21 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
>> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>
>>>>>You keep on saying that. I've been asking you why for quite some time
>>>>>now and you never answer. Why would reducing greenhouse gas emissions
>>>>>damage the economy?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
>>>>the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>>>
>>>And if you spend less for the same amount of energy to accomplish the
>>>same purposes, you will have stronger economic growth. Here in Quebec
>>>we are building wind farms for the purpose of selling electricity to
>>>the coal burners at our south, and doing so at a handsome profit.
>>
>>
>> Yes. Isn't that nice for you. Not everyone has the room and the wind
>> for wind farms, and wind farms can only provide a tiny portion of the
>> total power needs. So I'm not sure what your point is.
>
>Wind farms can provide more than a tiny portion of the total power needs.
>Nuclear power can also provide power at a handsome profit. My point is
>that I'm not sure what your point is when you say: "if you spend less
>for the same amount of energy to accomplish the same purposes, you will
>have stronger economic growth".
My point is exactly what I said. I don't see how you've even come
close to refuting it.
>We weren't talking about spending more
>for the same amount of energy.
I was.
>We were talking about reducing greenhouse gases. Of course it is
>possible to do so by spending more for the same
>amount of energy, but you don't have to do that.
Often you do. And often the things that the global warm-mongers
propose actually increase greenhouse gases (as biofuels apparently
do).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>Also, if you add in the
>the cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere, it can make sense
>at the macroeconomics level to pay more for the same amount of energy.
We don't know what that cost is with any degree of certainty.
>>>>>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>>>>>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>>>>>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
>>>>savings.
>>>
>>>Being more efficient is usually a winning strategy.
>>
>>
>> No, not "usually"--only when it makes economic sense.
>>
>> I could buy a hybrid vehicle that would double my fuel mileage, but it
>> would cost me much more than the gasoline I'd save.
>
>That depends on your driving habits. For many people buying the hybrid
>makes economic sense. If you had to pay for the damage you do to the
>environment by spewing CO2 into it, that would make it yet more likely
>that the hybrid would make economic sense.
And if it were possible to quantify to a high confidence level that
cost, it might make sense to do so. But it is not, currently.
In fact, if the sun really is cooling down, it might actually be not a
cost, but a benefit.
>It certainly made economic
>sense for Toyota to invest in the technology.
Japan has to pay a lot more for their oil than we do.
Alain Fournier
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:14:27 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
> Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:26:21 -0500, in a place far, far away, Alain
>>>Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>>>in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>If you have to spend more for the same amount of energy to accomplish
>>>>>the same purposes, you will have slower, or negative economic growth.
>>>>
>>>>And if you spend less for the same amount of energy to accomplish the
>>>>same purposes, you will have stronger economic growth. Here in Quebec
>>>>we are building wind farms for the purpose of selling electricity to
>>>>the coal burners at our south, and doing so at a handsome profit.
>>>
>>>Yes. Isn't that nice for you. Not everyone has the room and the wind
>>>for wind farms, and wind farms can only provide a tiny portion of the
>>>total power needs. So I'm not sure what your point is.
>>
>>Wind farms can provide more than a tiny portion of the total power needs.
>>Nuclear power can also provide power at a handsome profit. My point is
>>that I'm not sure what your point is when you say: "if you spend less
>>for the same amount of energy to accomplish the same purposes, you will
>>have stronger economic growth".
>
> My point is exactly what I said. I don't see how you've even come
> close to refuting it.
>
>>We weren't talking about spending more
>>for the same amount of energy.
>
> I was.
I see no point in talking about that.
>>We were talking about reducing greenhouse gases. Of course it is
>>possible to do so by spending more for the same
>>amount of energy, but you don't have to do that.
>
> Often you do. And often the things that the global warm-mongers
> propose actually increase greenhouse gases (as biofuels apparently
> do).
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
If your point is that there are some idiots among those who want
to fight global warming then I totally agree with you. Idiots are
every where. But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
emissions is bad for the economy.
>>Also, if you add in the
>>the cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere, it can make sense
>>at the macroeconomics level to pay more for the same amount of energy.
>
> We don't know what that cost is with any degree of certainty.
And we don't know what the cost of spilling tons of arsenic in
a lake is. In this part of the world those who spill tons of
arsenic (and get caught) pay for it nonetheless. We know the
cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not zero, which
is the price most pay for spewing CO2.
>>>>>>Seems to me that if you get more efficient, it
>>>>>>helps the economy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Germany has
>>>>>>been reducing their emission lately, their economy seems fine to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only if the costs of becoming more efficient are less than the
>>>>>savings.
>>>>
>>>>Being more efficient is usually a winning strategy.
>>>
>>>No, not "usually"--only when it makes economic sense.
>>>
>>>I could buy a hybrid vehicle that would double my fuel mileage, but it
>>>would cost me much more than the gasoline I'd save.
>>
>>That depends on your driving habits. For many people buying the hybrid
>>makes economic sense. If you had to pay for the damage you do to the
>>environment by spewing CO2 into it, that would make it yet more likely
>>that the hybrid would make economic sense.
>
> And if it were possible to quantify to a high confidence level that
> cost, it might make sense to do so. But it is not, currently.
See above.
> In fact, if the sun really is cooling down, it might actually be not a
> cost, but a benefit.
And if pigs had wings maybe they could fly. The planet is warming.
>>It certainly made economic
>>sense for Toyota to invest in the technology.
>
> Japan has to pay a lot more for their oil than we do.
Irrelevant, even if petrol was free in Japan, Toyota would be making
a profit by selling their hybrids outside Japan.
Alain Fournier
Fred J. McCall
:
:If your point is that there are some idiots among those who want
:to fight global warming then I totally agree with you. Idiots are
:every where. But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
:emissions is bad for the economy.
Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
that would have been spent doing something else.
:
:And we don't know what the cost of spilling tons of arsenic in
:a lake is.
:
Of course we do.
:
:In this part of the world those who spill tons of
:arsenic (and get caught) pay for it nonetheless. We know the
:cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not zero, which
:is the price most pay for spewing CO2.
:
For some value of 'too much' where no one knows what that value is or
just who or what is responsible for which part of it.
Joe Blow
news:oanvq350mo0g1452e...@4ax.com...
> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
> >emissions is bad for the economy.
>
>
> Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
> that would have been spent doing something else.
If you end up with a world that's not fit to live in, the cost won't matter
much.
JB
Governor Swill
>:
>
>Or perhaps we could just shoot the stupid trolls?
I do that on a daily basis.
Swill
Governor Swill
to babble
>>It does to me. The point of that argument is that if India and China
>>don't have to work to reduce GW, we don't either. That's stupid.
>
>No, it's smart. If "working to reduce GW" entails damaging our
>economy (and it does), and India and China are going to cause it to
>happen regardless of what we do, then it would be stupid of us to do
>it.
Follow:
Let India and China continue to use old technology. It's cheap and
suitable for their young, growing economies. India at least is
already poised to make the most efficient use of energy. Have you
seen that new dinky car they have over there? Forgot the name.
<google "india car"> The Tata Nano
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/?hp
In the meantime the US can and should pioneer green technologies
thereby creating new industries and millions of new jobs in the
Americas. By the time China and India are ready to get off fossil
fuels (for whatever reasons), they will have to begin by purchasing
technology from us.
Swill
Governor Swill
>:cobs. Many chemicals can be derived from coal as well. Oil has been
>:cheap and convenient. When coal orientated technologies get rolling,
>:they'll be cheap and convenient.
>:
>
>Go take some chemistry courses.
So coal chemical technology ended with coal gas, coke and coal tar?
Nothing else can possibly be derived from coal?
Swill
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:oanvq350mo0g1452e...@4ax.com...
:> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:>
:>> But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
:> >emissions is bad for the economy.
:>
:>
:> Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
:> that would have been spent doing something else.
:
:If you end up with a world that's not fit to live in, the cost won't matter
:much.
:
And you could do that just as easily by taking action to 'solve the
problem' as by not taking it, since we don't have working models to
know what the hell is going on.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Let India and China continue to use old technology.
:
So we all die regardless, except we die while getting out brains beat
out by India and China.
That makes sense. NOT.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
:
I repeat - go take some chemistry courses.
Joe Blow
> "Joe Blow" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:oanvq350mo0g1452e...@4ax.com...
> :> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> :>
> :>> But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
> :> >emissions is bad for the economy.
> :>
> :>
> :> Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
> :> that would have been spent doing something else.
> :
> :If you end up with a world that's not fit to live in, the cost won't
> matter
> :much.
> :
>
> And you could do that just as easily by taking action to 'solve the
> problem' as by not taking it, since we don't have working models to
> know what the hell is going on.
Some do. You don't. The science is in on this one. At least get out of the
way.
JB
Joe Blow
news:3rpvq3lorpftfhdbu...@4ax.com...
> Let India and China continue to use old technology. It's cheap and
> suitable for their young, growing economies. India at least is
> already poised to make the most efficient use of energy. Have you
> seen that new dinky car they have over there? Forgot the name.
> <google "india car"> The Tata Nano
> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/?hp
>
> In the meantime the US can and should pioneer green technologies
> thereby creating new industries and millions of new jobs in the
> Americas. By the time China and India are ready to get off fossil
> fuels (for whatever reasons), they will have to begin by purchasing
> technology from us.
>
> Swill
Gosh, you mean, as a nation, we should lead the world in technological
inovation and evironmental integrity? Sounds too good to be true, Gov.
...and maybe kinda boring. It's just that barrel-assing down the highway
in our tanks into strange dusty cities where we've never been before is just
so much more, you know, *cooler*. ...a-and we get to use our guns and shit,
y'know?
JB
Alain Fournier
> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> :
> :If your point is that there are some idiots among those who want
> :to fight global warming then I totally agree with you. Idiots are
> :every where. But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
> :emissions is bad for the economy.
> :
>
> Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
> that would have been spent doing something else.
You may have missed a previous post of mine where I explained that
we here in Quebec make electricity out of wind farms and sell that
electricity to the coal burners that live south. It helps our
economy. Note that we don't do our electricity only by wind farms
we also use hydro and nuclear. We do have one gas power plant but
its output is insignificant, we have zero coal fired electricity plants.
There is no reason to believe that a society more energy efficient
would have a weak economy.
> :
> :And we don't know what the cost of spilling tons of arsenic in
> :a lake is.
> :
>
> Of course we do.
We know only partly, just as for CO2 in the atmosphere.
> :
> :In this part of the world those who spill tons of
> :arsenic (and get caught) pay for it nonetheless. We know the
> :cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not zero, which
> :is the price most pay for spewing CO2.
> :
>
> For some value of 'too much' where no one knows what that value is or
> just who or what is responsible for which part of it.
We have a not perfect but somewhat good understanding of that.
Alain Fournier
Rand Simberg
Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>And if you spend less for the same amount of energy to accomplish the
>>>>>same purposes, you will have stronger economic growth. Here in Quebec
>>>>>we are building wind farms for the purpose of selling electricity to
>>>>>the coal burners at our south, and doing so at a handsome profit.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Isn't that nice for you. Not everyone has the room and the wind
>>>>for wind farms, and wind farms can only provide a tiny portion of the
>>>>total power needs. So I'm not sure what your point is.
>>>
>>>Wind farms can provide more than a tiny portion of the total power needs.
>>>Nuclear power can also provide power at a handsome profit. My point is
>>>that I'm not sure what your point is when you say: "if you spend less
>>>for the same amount of energy to accomplish the same purposes, you will
>>>have stronger economic growth".
>>
>> My point is exactly what I said. I don't see how you've even come
>> close to refuting it.
>>
>>>We weren't talking about spending more
>>>for the same amount of energy.
>>
>> I was.
>
>I see no point in talking about that.
It's what most people who talk about global warming are talking about,
whether they realize it or not.
>>>We were talking about reducing greenhouse gases. Of course it is
>>>possible to do so by spending more for the same
>>>amount of energy, but you don't have to do that.
>>
>> Often you do. And often the things that the global warm-mongers
>> propose actually increase greenhouse gases (as biofuels apparently
>> do).
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>
>If your point is that there are some idiots among those who want
>to fight global warming then I totally agree with you. Idiots are
>every where. But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
>emissions is bad for the economy.
It doesn't mean it isn't, either.
>>>Also, if you add in the
>>>the cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere, it can make sense
>>>at the macroeconomics level to pay more for the same amount of energy.
>>
>> We don't know what that cost is with any degree of certainty.
>
>And we don't know what the cost of spilling tons of arsenic in
>a lake is.
That's much easier to assess, with a much higher degree of certainty.
>In this part of the world those who spill tons of
>arsenic (and get caught) pay for it nonetheless. We know the
>cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not zero, which
>is the price most pay for spewing CO2.
We know that it's almost certainly non-zero, because it's unlikely
that it would be any given precise number. We don't know what the
number is with any level of accuracy or precision, or even whether
it's positive or negative.
>>>>I could buy a hybrid vehicle that would double my fuel mileage, but it
>>>>would cost me much more than the gasoline I'd save.
>>>
>>>That depends on your driving habits. For many people buying the hybrid
>>>makes economic sense. If you had to pay for the damage you do to the
>>>environment by spewing CO2 into it, that would make it yet more likely
>>>that the hybrid would make economic sense.
>>
>> And if it were possible to quantify to a high confidence level that
>> cost, it might make sense to do so. But it is not, currently.
>
>See above.
Yes, see above.
>> In fact, if the sun really is cooling down, it might actually be not a
>> cost, but a benefit.
>
>And if pigs had wings maybe they could fly. The planet is warming.
Over the short term, perhjaps. The planet has gone through many
cycles of warming and cooling, of various durations.
>>>It certainly made economic
>>>sense for Toyota to invest in the technology.
>>
>> Japan has to pay a lot more for their oil than we do.
>
>Irrelevant, even if petrol was free in Japan, Toyota would be making
>a profit by selling their hybrids outside Japan.
They might not have developed them to seel outside of Japan, if they
didn't have a need for the domestic market.
Rand Simberg
<spam-...@nowhere.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Yes, and as Alain said, if pigs had wings...
Rand Simberg
<spam-...@nowhere.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Even assuming (for the sake of argument) that the "science" is in on
this one, it's pretty clear (particularly based on some of the posts
in this very thread) that the economics are not.
Rand Simberg
>"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3rpvq3lorpftfhdbu...@4ax.com...
>> Let India and China continue to use old technology. It's cheap and
>> suitable for their young, growing economies. India at least is
>> already poised to make the most efficient use of energy. Have you
>> seen that new dinky car they have over there? Forgot the name.
>> <google "india car"> The Tata Nano
>> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/?hp
>>
>> In the meantime the US can and should pioneer green technologies
>> thereby creating new industries and millions of new jobs in the
>> Americas. By the time China and India are ready to get off fossil
>> fuels (for whatever reasons), they will have to begin by purchasing
>> technology from us.
>>
>> Swill
>***
>Gosh, you mean, as a nation, we should lead the world in technological
>inovation and evironmental integrity?
We already do, and will continue to do so, regardless of those who
demand that we hobble our economy.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:srrvq39m1ou25a3i3...@4ax.com...
:> "Joe Blow" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
:>
:> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> :news:oanvq350mo0g1452e...@4ax.com...
:> :> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>> But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
:> :> >emissions is bad for the economy.
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
:> :> that would have been spent doing something else.
:> :
:> :If you end up with a world that's not fit to live in, the cost won't
:> matter
:> :much.
:> :
:>
:> And you could do that just as easily by taking action to 'solve the
:> problem' as by not taking it, since we don't have working models to
:> know what the hell is going on.
:>
:
:Some do. You don't. The science is in on this one. At least get out of the
:way.
:
Not so much, no.
Just like the science was in on biofuels, right up until someone did
an actual analysis and discovered the stuff is precisely the WRONG
answer. If you lot would stop taking all this as religious articles
of faith, your pronouncements might be given a lot more credibility.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Gosh, you mean, as a nation, we should lead the world in technological
:...and maybe kinda boring. It's just that barrel-assing down the highway
:in our tanks into strange dusty cities where we've never been before is just
:so much more, you know, *cooler*. ...a-and we get to use our guns and shit,
:y'know?
Oh, I see. You're just an idiot, then...
Joe Blow
>>>
>>> And you could do that just as easily by taking action to 'solve the
>>> problem' as by not taking it, since we don't have working models to
>>> know what the hell is going on.
>>***
>>Some do. You don't. The science is in on this one. At least get out of
>>the
>>way.
>
> Even assuming (for the sake of argument) that the "science" is in on
> this one, it's pretty clear (particularly based on some of the posts
> in this very thread) that the economics are not.
***
Not yet. but that just makes you just one more coyote in headlights, doesn't
it? No middle ground here.
(meep-meep!)
JB
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:> :
:> :If your point is that there are some idiots among those who want
:> :to fight global warming then I totally agree with you. Idiots are
:> :every where. But that does not mean that reducing greenhouse gas
:> :emissions is bad for the economy.
:> :
:>
:> Of course it does. Have you looked at cost estimates? That's money
:> that would have been spent doing something else.
:
:You may have missed a previous post of mine where I explained that
:we here in Quebec make electricity out of wind farms and sell that
:electricity to the coal burners that live south.
:
I missed nothing. It certainly helps to have all that hydro-power.
:
:It helps our
:economy. Note that we don't do our electricity only by wind farms
:we also use hydro and nuclear.
:
Or even mostly by wind farms. In point of fact, Quebec gets twice as
much electricity from natural gas as it does from wind farms and twice
that from petroleum plants. Of course, all these numbers are quite
small, as over 96% of your power generation comes from hydro-power.
:
:We do have one gas power plant but
:its output is insignificant, we have zero coal fired electricity plants.
:There is no reason to believe that a society more energy efficient
:would have a weak economy.
:
If your electric generation from gas is "insignificant", what do you
call half that amount (which is where your wind power generation is)?
:
:>
:> :
:> :And we don't know what the cost of spilling tons of arsenic in
:> :a lake is.
:> :
:>
:> Of course we do.
:
:We know only partly, just as for CO2 in the atmosphere.
:
Nope. I'll tell you what. I'll breath air with 350ppm of CO2 in it
and you drink water with the same concentration of arsenic in it and
we'll see how it works out.
:
:>
:> :
:> :In this part of the world those who spill tons of
:> :arsenic (and get caught) pay for it nonetheless. We know the
:> :cost of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not zero, which
:> :is the price most pay for spewing CO2.
:> :
:>
:> For some value of 'too much' where no one knows what that value is or
:> just who or what is responsible for which part of it.
:
:We have a not perfect but somewhat good understanding of that.
:
But not well enough to be setting policy.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Not yet. but that just makes you just one more coyote in headlights, doesn't
And so we see the 'Global Warming as religious conviction' approach,
where there is "no middle ground here" and anyone pointing out the
flaws is a heretic.
Joe Blow
> Just like the science was in on biofuels, right up until someone did
> an actual analysis and discovered the stuff is precisely the WRONG
> answer. If you lot would stop taking all this as religious articles
> of faith, your pronouncements might be given a lot more credibility.
***
Decades back, if a Granger wanted to slip a little corn likker into his
model T (all the first cars were flex-fuel,) to drive to town, he had to be
careful th' revenoo-ers didn't catch up with him. On a small and
decentralized scale, the production of ethanol made perfect sense as an
alternative to petroleum-based fuels. The Phohibition Act of 1919, of
course, was never really about saving people from the abuse of alcohol by
drinking it, any more than the US invasion of Iraq was about saving a people
from Saddam Hussein.
http://www.lauriecarlson.com/files/Alcohol_wha.doc
(Thanks, Laurie!)
Corn ethanol may turn out to be a sidestep in the current quest for
biofuels, but hardly a dead end. A lot of the difficulty may turn out to be
adverse propaganda from the pertroleum industry, or the narrow, ham-fisted
approach of corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland.
Speaking of articles of faith, in your own case Fred, we'll give you a straw
and let you suck that black goo out of the ground until you die. You're
obviously so dedicated to the stuff. You must own stock.
No Blood For Oil,
Joe Blow
Joe Blow
In your case, I'm not going to mistake cynicism for pragmatism.
JB
Rand Simberg
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
There are many middle grounds.
Joe Blow
> "Joe Blow" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> :
> :Gosh, you mean, as a nation, we should lead the world in technological
> :inovation and evironmental integrity? Sounds too good to be true, Gov.
> :...and maybe kinda boring. It's just that barrel-assing down the
> highway
> :in our tanks into strange dusty cities where we've never been before is
> just
> :so much more, you know, *cooler*. ...a-and we get to use our guns and
> shit,
> :y'know?
> :
>
> Oh, I see. You're just an idiot, then...
Actually you don't. You're just some kind of stuffed shirt who doesn't know
satire when he sees it.
JB
Fred J. McCall
:
:Corn ethanol may turn out to be a sidestep in the current quest for
:adverse propaganda from the pertroleum industry, or the narrow, ham-fisted
:approach of corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland.
:
:Speaking of articles of faith, in your own case Fred, we'll give you a straw
:and let you suck that black goo out of the ground until you die. You're
:obviously so dedicated to the stuff. You must own stock.
You've obviously missed all the latest studies, which show that
biofuels are *WORSE* for the CO2 balance than just burning petroleum,
once you take everything into account.
But you go ahead and ruin the planet with your biofuel mania.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:0fn0r3h1slirb7a8u...@4ax.com...
:> "Joe Blow" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :Gosh, you mean, as a nation, we should lead the world in technological
:> :inovation and evironmental integrity? Sounds too good to be true, Gov.
:> :...and maybe kinda boring. It's just that barrel-assing down the highway
:> :in our tanks into strange dusty cities where we've never been before is just
:> :so much more, you know, *cooler*. ...a-and we get to use our guns and shit,
:> :y'know?
:> :
:>
:> Oh, I see. You're just an idiot, then...
:
:Actually you don't. You're just some kind of stuffed shirt who doesn't know
:satire when he sees it.
:
Of course I know satire when I see it. If you ever write some you'll
see.