The algae projects underway use concentrated CO2 to boost efficiency (gal/arce produced) so that they provide a second use of the carbon, but they
are not carbon neutral because they rely on the use of fossil fuels for production. The GreenFuel pilot plant in AZ (about 0.3 acre) is getting 40%
capture of CO2 according the Gary Leung who is with the company: http://www.greenfuelonline.com/. This all fine while we burn fossil fuels, but
there will be a need to either do better with a 380 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 or find a way to concentrate CO2 from the atmosphere that
is more efficient than rooted plants. Global Research Technologies (discussed here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/2 6/0226222) is working on the latter problem. But, you are correct that only algae have the efficiency to produce liquid fuels on a scale similar to how we use them now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.
On the other hand, we are facing constricted supplies of oil now and doing something about that quickly looks as though it is going the route of rooted plants. The reason why is because this is presently the path of least resistance. The ethanol pump is primed. -- Silicon: better than carbon for energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Well, to me the thing to run as is a candidate who does not take PAC, corporate or union money. Republocrats have a very hard time getting off that
particular habit.
Greens, libertarians and populists did come together to support such a candidate in the Maryland senate race last election. Perhaps we'll see more of that.
Reigning in the executive is the responsibility of congress. Real consequences for being held in contempt should help I think. With 6000 members of congress, it seems to me that a president is going to have her hands full just getting a budget to sign. It should slow her down as well.
I'm a green so I'm a bit to the right of the libertarians if the whole left right spectrum thing makes any sense. I support bioregionalism as a rational basis for decentralization, for example, whilst libertarians support a vauge decentralization that lacks political cohesion. But I also feel that affiliation with the republocrats is such a hadicap at this moment that I just can't support them at the national level. If you are correct, and only two parties can exist, then it is time for two new parties rather than the fused parties in power now. I think that you are likely incorrect since a more decentraized system will have a wealth of parties as we used to have.
I think it would be most helpful to the president if the prosecutor now asked the judge to convert the remaining fine to jail time. This might get Libby to come clean and the whole case solved. Miller certainly talked after some time in jail. Getting Libby to turn state's evidence would ensure that the correct people are properly punished as the president wished.
It is interesting that you say that Armitage did not commit a crime. I think I might agree if he was just repeating what the administration was cooking up as a smear. Did he hear from Grossman about Libby's interest in Wilson's wife? Did he read the actual document marked secret before speaking to Woodward? He may not have known that Plame was covert at that time though he should have. By the time he speaks with Novak though he should be pretty much aware that the information is secret. On the other hand, Wilson warned Novak that it was indiscrete to go around blabbing on July 10 http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline #July_10. Novak then speaks to Libby on July 11, presumably tidying up. Does he ask Libby if Libby knows that Plame is covert? That would be pretty standard practice. Novak certainly sends a copy of the article to Rove for approval. With that kind of editorial control, Novak is just an organ and it is a Libby-Rove show orchestrating the outing. They are also releasing other classified information at the time to assist with the smear which Libby insists is authorized, so he is being careful about that at least.
This action of the president is unfortunate since after a few months in jail, Libby might have been willing to talk. Miller finally did. But, perhaps the president's motive is not alleviating too harsh a sentence but rather disuading Libby from talking. In that case, the president's action would be
an attempt to obstruct justice.
Sorry to get confused by the lable. Still, if he is really a libertarian, why doesn't he seek the libertarin nomination. I have a problem with sheep in wolves' clothing I think. It makes me think they are not so honest. Also, I disagree on tactics. I'm for increasing the size of the federal government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apporti onment_Amendment since I think this would tend to slow it down. I think maybe it does not deliberate enough. A debate on an optional war might last past the natural death of the dictator, making the whole thing moot.
Well, it wasn't she but he. This was all about the president knowingly lying to the American people in the State of the Union Address, to propogandize for war, something that is illegal for countries that have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm. There is a report on this here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/ art%2020%20shadow%20rpt%20final.pdf. It was her husband, rather than she who pointed the lie out in the NYT.
Since then it has been more and more lying which led to the conviction of Libby who is covering up for others and is currently being rewarded for that.
The greens did 17% against the house majority leader. The spending ratio was outlandish. But, more and more people are seeking actual change and not just a shuffling of the cards.
A new leash law? Please curb you high crime president? There are articles of impeachment for Cheney in the house http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articlevie w/5505/1/268/. There were articles introduced for Bush in the last session, but none in this session. Perhaps the immigration debate will settle down if those two are off singing about brown eyed women and red grenadine. Kind of balance things out a bit.
Also, the NYT editorial is pretty close to your position: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/opinion/03tues1. web.html. Their news analysis is
saying that Bush is completely off the leash because his numbers are so low that he feels he can do anything he wants. Lower than any president ever it seems. So, how about if congress takes Iran off the table before Independence Day. Surely, the news that Iran is helping to plan and execute attacks against our soldiers is timed in an awkward manner.
In support of this was the evidence at trial, Cheney's notes on Wilson's op-ed piece. However, if the deal was done before the trial, then that is a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the case needs to be looked at again. This is not double jeopardy since the conspiracy is a seperate crime.
I think, since he is not running for office, he can be a softy now. Maybe now he'll grant a posthumous pardon to this girl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker. It might make up for mocking her after she died. Or maybe it would just mock her more....
I wonder if this beats the plea deal Spiro Agnew got: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew, called the "greatest deal since the Lord spared Isaac on the mountaintop"?
Guess the wimp factor doesn't go away. Nixon had the guts to let Agnew twist.
Yes, the comparison is that both likely believe what they are saying, they are not saying what they are saying to profit even if they may profit from what they say. But, I don't think that Jung's attempted explanation relies on mere delusion. For him, the mandala experiences have a kind of fundemental reality that are a required part of human development. The difference comes in the interpretation: should the experience be taken as a movement of the unconsious or an exterior experience? In the case of eight or so people passing some strange material around a table at a meeting, you'd think the latter interpretation would make the most sense, if all the people concur that this is what happened. Here, not all do so people start questioning motive.
I think Jung's explanation, if it applies, has more to do with the large number of reports rather than with the specifics here because it would seem that
something actually happened. But, there should be ways to approach this without attaching Haut's motives. -- Get solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Actually, the helium abundance is nearly the same now as it was before stars first started to form. And, the rate of star formation is dropping fairly rapidly: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 1996/37/. Only a small fraction of the available hydrogen is incoporated into stars and the reason is that as galaxies and the universe evolve, it becomes more difficult to form stars. Systems that have low rotation, the more massive systems, have virial temperatures that are too high to allow the condensation of molecular clouds so that star formation is cut off. Even without galaxy-galaxy inteactions, a huge spur for star formation and a means of transforming rotationaly supported systems into non-rotationally supported systems, galaxies will evolve into more spherical shapes and have less star formation. There is little danger of running out of hydrogen but the circumstances where the hydrogen can form new stars will become rarer and rarer. -- Get solar energy while it's hot: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
He also swore an affidavit in 1993. It is very similar: http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Haut.html. These seem to be things he believed. I recall when Stanton Friedman http://www.stantonfriedman.com/ stayed as a guest at my home when I was a kid. He'd worked with my father, also a nuclear physicist, before and came to give a lecture on UFOs. He also believed what he was saying. I think you need to look for explanations that do not rely on impuning motive in some of these cases.
I'm not one to want to leave behind the delicious contemplation of the Fermi Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox, so I wait for stronger evidence, but there are many sincere people who are quite sure they've experienced something that can only be explained in this way: http://www.disclosureproject.org/.
Getting to the point where biomass can replace liquid fuels is hard. About the only thing that comes close is algae because the gal/acre ratio
is too low for everything else: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. I think we'll do better with batteries.
You seem to agree with Bucky Fuller: From Chapter 8 of the Operating Manual for the Spaceship Earth http://www.bfi.org/?q=node/414
The fossil fuel deposits of our Spaceship Earth correspond to our automobile's storage battery which must be conserved to turn over our main engine's self-starter. Thereafter, our "main engine," the life regenerating processes, must operate exclusively on our vast daily energy income from the powers of wind, tide, water, and the direct Sun radiation energy. The fossil-fuel savings account has been put aboard Spaceship Earth for the exclusive function of getting the new machinery built with which to support life and humanity at ever more effective standards of vital physical energy and reinspiring metaphysical sustenance to be sustained exclusively on our Sun radiation's and Moon pull gravity's tidal, wind, and rainfall generated pulsating and therefore harnessable energies. The daily income energies are excessively adequate for the operation of our main industrial engines and their automated productions. The energy expended in one minute of a tropical hurricane equals the combined energy of all the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. nuclear weapons. Only by understanding this scheme may we continue for all time ahead to enjoy and explore universe as we progressively harness evermore of the celestially generated tidal and storm generated wind, water, and electrical power concentrations. We cannot afford to expend our fossil fuels faster than we are "recharging our battery," which means precisely the rate at which the fossil fuels are being continually deposited within Earth's spherical crust. -- Get solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Hummm... The Gaia hypothesis is the only one I know with "active" control. More vulcanism produces more exposed rock I suppose but the basic fractional level of CO2 in the atmosphere is set biologically. It seems to me that there are some cycles, largely orbital, but this is forcing rather than control.
Slashdot Mirror
The algae projects underway use concentrated CO2 to boost efficiency (gal/arce produced) so that they provide a second use of the carbon, but they are not carbon neutral because they rely on the use of fossil fuels for production. The GreenFuel pilot plant in AZ (about 0.3 acre) is getting 40% capture of CO2 according the Gary Leung who is with the company: http://www.greenfuelonline.com/. This all fine while we burn fossil fuels, but there will be a need to either do better with a 380 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 or find a way to concentrate CO2 from the atmosphere that is more efficient than rooted plants. Global Research Technologies (discussed here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/2 6/0226222) is working on the latter problem. But, you are correct that only algae have the efficiency to produce liquid fuels on a scale similar to how we use them now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.
s -selling-solar.html
On the other hand, we are facing constricted supplies of oil now and doing something about that quickly looks as though it is going the route of rooted plants. The reason why is because this is presently the path of least resistance. The ethanol pump is primed.
--
Silicon: better than carbon for energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Well, to me the thing to run as is a candidate who does not take PAC, corporate or union money. Republocrats have a very hard time getting off that particular habit.
Greens, libertarians and populists did come together to support such a candidate in the Maryland senate race last election. Perhaps we'll see more of that.
Reigning in the executive is the responsibility of congress. Real consequences for being held in contempt should help I think. With 6000 members of congress, it seems to me that a president is going to have her hands full just getting a budget to sign. It should slow her down as well.
I'm a green so I'm a bit to the right of the libertarians if the whole left right spectrum thing makes any sense. I support bioregionalism as a rational basis for decentralization, for example, whilst libertarians support a vauge decentralization that lacks political cohesion. But I also feel that affiliation with the republocrats is such a hadicap at this moment that I just can't support them at the national level. If you are correct, and only two parties can exist, then it is time for two new parties rather than the fused parties in power now. I think that you are likely incorrect since a more decentraized system will have a wealth of parties as we used to have.
I think it would be most helpful to the president if the prosecutor now asked the judge to convert the remaining fine to jail time. This might get Libby to come clean and the whole case solved. Miller certainly talked after some time in jail. Getting Libby to turn state's evidence would ensure that the correct people are properly punished as the president wished.
It is interesting that you say that Armitage did not commit a crime. I think I might agree if he was just repeating what the administration was cooking up as a smear. Did he hear from Grossman about Libby's interest in Wilson's wife? Did he read the actual document marked secret before speaking to Woodward? He may not have known that Plame was covert at that time though he should have. By the time he speaks with Novak though he should be pretty much aware that the information is secret. On the other hand, Wilson warned Novak that it was indiscrete to go around blabbing on July 10 http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Plame_Leak_timeline #July_10. Novak then speaks to Libby on July 11, presumably tidying up. Does he ask Libby if Libby knows that Plame is covert? That would be pretty standard practice. Novak certainly sends a copy of the article to Rove for approval. With that kind of editorial control, Novak is just an organ and it is a Libby-Rove show orchestrating the outing. They are also releasing other classified information at the time to assist with the smear which Libby insists is authorized, so he is being careful about that at least.
This action of the president is unfortunate since after a few months in jail, Libby might have been willing to talk. Miller finally did. But, perhaps the president's motive is not alleviating too harsh a sentence but rather disuading Libby from talking. In that case, the president's action would be an attempt to obstruct justice.
Sorry to get confused by the lable. Still, if he is really a libertarian, why doesn't he seek the libertarin nomination. I have a problem with sheep in wolves' clothing I think. It makes me think they are not so honest. Also, I disagree on tactics. I'm for increasing the size of the federal government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apporti onment_Amendment since I think this would tend to slow it down. I think maybe it does not deliberate enough. A debate on an optional war might last past the natural death of the dictator, making the whole thing moot.
Well, it wasn't she but he. This was all about the president knowingly lying to the American people in the State of the Union Address, to propogandize for war, something that is illegal for countries that have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm. There is a report on this here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/ art%2020%20shadow%20rpt%20final.pdf. It was her husband, rather than she who pointed the lie out in the NYT.
Since then it has been more and more lying which led to the conviction of Libby who is covering up for others and is currently being rewarded for that.
The greens did 17% against the house majority leader. The spending ratio was outlandish. But, more and more people are seeking actual change and not just a shuffling of the cards.
Isn't he a republocrat though? Insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results.
A new leash law? Please curb you high crime president? There are articles of impeachment for Cheney in the house http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articlevie w/5505/1/268/. There were articles introduced for Bush in the last session, but none in this session. Perhaps the immigration debate will settle down if those two are off singing about brown eyed women and red grenadine. Kind of balance things out a bit.
Vote for the guy who told you so.
Also, the NYT editorial is pretty close to your position: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/opinion/03tues1. web.html. Their news analysis is
saying that Bush is completely off the leash because his numbers are so low that he feels he can do anything he wants. Lower than any president ever it seems. So, how about if congress takes Iran off the table before Independence Day. Surely, the news that Iran is helping to plan and execute attacks against our soldiers is timed in an awkward manner.
0 7#Group_C
US needs to play well against Columbia on July 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Am%C3%A9rica_20
In support of this was the evidence at trial, Cheney's notes on Wilson's op-ed piece. However, if the deal was done before the trial, then that is a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the case needs to be looked at again. This is not double jeopardy since the conspiracy is a seperate crime.
Argentina wins 4 2
Global warming is a technical issue. Political attacks on scientist have technical ramifications.
Argentina 3 Columbia 1 in the second half.
Not only in 2000, but also in 2004: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30349.
I think, since he is not running for office, he can be a softy now. Maybe now he'll grant a posthumous pardon to this girl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker. It might make up for mocking her after she died. Or maybe it would just mock her more....
I wonder if this beats the plea deal Spiro Agnew got: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew, called the "greatest deal since the Lord spared Isaac on the mountaintop"?
Guess the wimp factor doesn't go away. Nixon had the guts to let Agnew twist.
Yes, the comparison is that both likely believe what they are saying, they are not saying what they are saying to profit even if they may profit from what they say. But, I don't think that Jung's attempted explanation relies on mere delusion. For him, the mandala experiences have a kind of fundemental reality that are a required part of human development. The difference comes in the interpretation: should the experience be taken as a movement of the unconsious or an exterior experience? In the case of eight or so people passing some strange material around a table at a meeting, you'd think the latter interpretation would make the most sense, if all the people concur that this is what happened. Here, not all do so people start questioning motive.
s -selling-solar.html
I think Jung's explanation, if it applies, has more to do with the large number of reports rather than with the specifics here because it would seem that something actually happened. But, there should be ways to approach this without attaching Haut's motives.
--
Get solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, the helium abundance is nearly the same now as it was before stars first started to form. And, the rate of star formation is dropping fairly rapidly: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 1996/37/. Only a small fraction of the available hydrogen is incoporated into stars and the reason is that as galaxies and the universe evolve, it becomes more difficult to form stars. Systems that have low rotation, the more massive systems, have virial temperatures that are too high to allow the condensation of molecular clouds so that star formation is cut off. Even without galaxy-galaxy inteactions, a huge spur for star formation and a means of transforming rotationaly supported systems into non-rotationally supported systems, galaxies will evolve into more spherical shapes and have less star formation. There is little danger of running out of hydrogen but the circumstances where the hydrogen can form new stars will become rarer and rarer.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar energy while it's hot: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Haut.html.
Easy solar energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
--
He also swore an affidavit in 1993. It is very similar: http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Haut.html. These seem to be things he believed. I recall when Stanton Friedman http://www.stantonfriedman.com/ stayed as a guest at my home when I was a kid. He'd worked with my father, also a nuclear physicist, before and came to give a lecture on UFOs. He also believed what he was saying. I think you need to look for explanations that do not rely on impuning motive in some of these cases.
1 567311210/ref=sr_1_1/105-3124676-0728448?ie=UTF8&s =books&qid=1183345880&sr=1-1 s -selling-solar.html
I'm not one to want to leave behind the delicious contemplation of the Fermi Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox, so I wait for stronger evidence, but there are many sincere people who are quite sure they've experienced something that can only be explained in this way: http://www.disclosureproject.org/.
I think Carl Jung took an interesting stab and an alternative explanation in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucers-C-G-Jung/dp/
--
Get solar power the easy way: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Getting to the point where biomass can replace liquid fuels is hard. About the only thing that comes close is algae because the gal/acre ratio is too low for everything else: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. I think we'll do better with batteries.
Get solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Hummm... The Gaia hypothesis is the only one I know with "active" control. More vulcanism produces more exposed rock I suppose but the basic fractional level of CO2 in the atmosphere is set biologically. It seems to me that there are some cycles, largely orbital, but this is forcing rather than control.