Yeah. I should know better than to be imprecise in a forum like this. Copper-Indium di-Selenide cells are, as of the last time I checked (which is a number of years ago now) the highest efficiency. I haven't seen numbers on Gallium-Arsenide. I am aware of research on other semiconductors in this area, but I was shown the info under an NDA and I haven't seen any products (it was a Thomas Mowles, Ph.D. who clued me in back in the mid 90's).
I am NOT a chemist, physicist, or EE. I'm just an interested amateur.
I do, however, stand by my statement about mono and polycrystalline silicon being inefficient because of their use of indirect bandgap energies. It takes about 300kWH/kg to refine moncrystalline silicon and, because of the indirect absorption, the cells must be thick to achieve good efficiency. This makes their energy cost quite high. They do payback, and in only a few years, but I suspect that there are potential thin-film semiconductor materials that will have similar efficiency to monocrystalline silicon at much lower energy cost to manufacture.
You were quite right to call my on my sloppy statements (as I was by others on other imprecise statements I made).
Polycrystalline and amorphous silicon cells are only in demand because of the high energy cost to manufacture of moncrystalline silicon. They will never be as efficient as moncrystalline silicon, as you rightly say.
I was being quite sloppy in mixing economic "efficiency" (cost) with energy efficiency (the coefficient of energy throughput).
Wrong (completely backwards). It's the most efficient of the consumer-grade solutions; polycrystalline is less efficient and cheaper, and amorphous is the least efficient but cheapest.
I was not comparing to other silicon-based solutions. I was comparing to CIS and Cd-Te cells.
Again, you've caught me being sloppy. I'm talking about total system efficiency, not just the efficiency of the individual components. A lead-acid battery is more efficient than electrolysis, but electrolyized hydrogen used in a fuel cell is potentially much more efficient in a working PV generator or vehicle than batteries.
Here's a comprehensive study on lead-acid batteries from Sandia Nat'l Laboratories:
The combustion of hydrogen releases energy at higher efficiency than a lead-acid battery, but an internal combustion engine is much less efficient than that (I don't have numbers), thanks to losses in the engine itself, but the difference here is energy density: A tank of compressed hydrogen can store more energy in much less mass than a battery, making it more practical, especially in a vehicle. Fuel cells could theoretically improve the picture a great deal, making hydrogen the winner by a mile (more scientific precision!;-)
AFAIK, nobody has a economically viable fuel cell that can compete in payback terms with chemical batteries right now. Also, I'm just an interested amateur, I do not work or research in this field!
You are quite right. My memory was faulty (2kW would be sweet, wouldn't it?) and your figure is a good approximate total insolation at the earth's surface.
But the equator is not the best place to put PV. Hours of sunlight and electrical use patterns change things somewhat. I like in Minnesota, and we have longer summer days here than at the equator and summer is also when electrical use is at its highest. We get more total solar energy in June that you do at the equator. Of course, in the winter, we get far less. It is a common misconception that PV is best in the tropics. Not necessarily so.
Of course, insolation at the equator is greater than here, but not by as much as the longer day offsets.
Your boundary figures are right on the mark, however. Thanks for the correction.
Boy, I should preview at least three times! I mean I don't think the stability of oil will increase, and I don't think the price will steadily decrease anymore. If you adjust gas prices for inflation, we're still below its historic highs.
I also omitted a few words in my typing haste like "we'll see much" and so on. Forgive my haste!
The 200w/sq. m is based on monocrystalline silicon PV. This is the cheapest but also almost the least efficient PV solution because the actual absorption is in the indirect bandgap energy of silicon.
There are thin-film PV solutions with much higher efficiencies (and much higher costs, and much higher toxicity involved in production). But there is also research going on on other semiconductor materials the hold out promise of high efficiency at fairly low cost. (I don't think we'll ever make thin films where there aren't some danged scary chemicals involved.)
Even so, your point is well made. Insolation is such that even if you could acheive 100% PV efficiency, you would still only have about 2kW/sq. meter.
Any realistic ground-based fuel production will require large arrays of PV. You'll need a lot of area to power your car.
But there are plenty of people powering their homes entirely off PV (entirely is a bit of stretch -- they use Propane or other combustion for a lot, including, often, for refrigeration).
People also have entirely solar charged electric cars, but again, they require a fairly large of field of PV panels. The real advantage here is that the efficiency of hydrogen as the energy storage is much greater than the efficiency of chemical batteries.
And, oh yeah, there are 100% solar powered cars right now that run on what they generate at the moment. But these are the cars in the American Solar Challenge which are a long way from practical household commuter cars.
But we have barely begun to put resources and research and capital into energy alternatives. I have always said that it wouldn't begin until oil prices went way up. I'm not even sure that we'll a lot of progress now. But I'm quite confident that the stability and price of oil will not steadily increase anymore. We're already seeing wind power become a fairly significant energy source. PV will follow. I think it will become common for homes to have grid-intertied solar power systems.
Alternative fuel cars are coming. Hybrids are just a first step. I don't know which technology will catch on, fuel cells or hydrogen combustion, but I'd bet we'll see petrochemical powered vehicles in the minority in my lifetime. (I'm in my late 30's).
While I sympathize with what you are saying, I think, if you will forgive me for saying so, you are making a classic blunder. I don't think there is an "American culture." We do not and never have had a monoculture. There have always been people who go to Opera and ballet, and there have always been people who like to watch two dogs maul each other to death.
Reality TV is voyeurism and scopophilia, but those too are nothing new.
While I think a person can make judgements and decisions about culture, I think it helps to try to develop an almost anthropological detachement when comes to making the next step: Judging people to be inferior because of their tastes. That is a dangerous leap, from judging culture by your tastes and predjudices to judging people by their tastes.
I have found that most of the people I have met are good and thoughtful people, no matter whether they like Edward Albee or Eddie Albert. You'd be surprised how intelligent some people are who like to watch "The Bachelor."
Of course you can judge culture, and you should. Of course aspiring to a mature asthetic is a good thing. But condescension based on relative sophistication is nothing but arrogance. To trot out a handy cliche: There is no accounting for taste.
I have a number of friends who were former officers in our military at every level from Army Lieutenants to officers of flag rank.
Their opinions express to me have been mixed as to which candidate they would support. But they all indicate to me that they believe the military is over-extended. They believe that our ability to respond to global threats has been seriously diminished by the number of operations currently underway.
(For the record, I personally tend towards Kerry, and, also for the record, I have not had the chance to discuss the matter with my knowledgeable friends since the recent announcement of redeployment plans a few weeks ago.)
So, is America safer? If a major conflict were to occour now, whether between India and Pakistan, or between China and Taiwan, or, say between Iran and Israel, what would our options be?
What plans would you (either candidate) have to ensure that our military is able both to prosecute the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, stabilize Iraq, and handle an international crisis?
2) Winning the war
The cold war was fought with deterrence. Anti-American militant Islamic fundamentalism seems to lack an obvious deterrent. To win the war, it seems to me, we have to win the war of ideas, because we cannot either kill everyone who hates us, or deter them from attack.
How would you win the war for the hearts and minds of the world? Or would you not try? Would you maintain that force can protect us? If so, how?
(I realize that this is a bit of leading question and I invite people to dispute the premise that we must make them NOT hate us. If there's a way to win without defusing the hate, I'd love to hear it.)
3) The palestinian question
Another leading question: The situation between the Israeli government and the people who identify themselves as Palestinians (coupled with the Islamic world's perception that we one-sidedly support Israel) is the major contributor to anti-Americanism in the region. To me, the single biggest step forward in winning the hearts and minds would be to find a peaceful settlement of that conflict.
What is your plan to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
I seem to recall a little population reducing event between 1936 and 1945 that seemed to do a pretty good job. It wasn't microbial, but it was more than adequate.
Hmm. I think you're joking. But how about this? No taxes at all while you're alive, but a 95% estate tax. A married couple is a single person for the purpose of this tax (both must die before the tax is assessed).
Yep. No taxes. Until you're dead. Then uncle sam gets almost all of it. Every generation must make it entirely on its own.
Equally implausible, but I think a more fun radical idea than yours.
Did you notice that he only allowed inspectors back in after the authorization bill passed? I thought that was the point and what the administration wanted. I thought they wanted to make sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. I'm saying I was wrong about the Bush administration intent. I thought the purpose was to get inspectors in. I thought it was a means to an end, not an end in itself. I was wrong.
BTW, I'm getting hammered "offtopic." I don't think it should be possible to moderate any child of a post already marked "offtopic" as "offtopic." Your post, this post, and the parent of your post are on-topic. Only the initial one is off-topic.
But how to mod this message? Half of it is off-topic by my own definition. The funny thing is I have mod points right now.;-)
Sorry, responding to parent's sig. And the only reason I wrote the post was because I resent the Republican assertion that to be against Bush is to be unpatriotic or to wish our armed forces ill. This is simply not so.
Also, opposition to Bush doesn't imply complete opposition to the policies of his administration (just most of them in my case). For example, I completely support our intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime, apart from being every bit as oppressive to its own people as Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq (perhaps more so), was also harboring Osama Bin Laden and allowing terrorist training camps to operate within its borders. Those "institutions" actually carried out a massive attack on our soil (remember?) The toppling of that regime was a legitimate act of national defense.
At this point, I am convinced that we had no such justification for our action in Iraq. I also suspect that the Bush administration knew that (although I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt). When Bush pressed for congressional authorization, I honestly believed it was to back up the demand for inspections with a credible threat of force. I wrote off the people here on/. who said Bush was spoiling for war as hysterics who did not understand diplomacy. How humbling to find out how completely wrong I was.
So there is room for legitimate disagreement in a free society, and I believe that the United States is still a (barely) free society. As soon as loyal opposition is branded treason (Anne Coulter) however, we are in deep, deep trouble.
So, again, I support our troops. I oppose our President. My right to do that is patriotism (as, I think, your right to support our President is as well. It's the linkage of the two I mistrust, not your right to support the President).
Really? I'm a Democrat, and I believe rich people (and this includes me) deserve to pay more taxes because we have more money and we benefit more from society than do poor people (which I would not classify as the "middle class," rather as a family that earns less than [IMHO] about $35,000/year).
I also have never taken "retribution" on anyone for disagreeing with me, unless voting against your candidate counts.
Please do the Lexis search. I don't have access to that resource and I am not aware of a single successful software liability plaintiff in any US jurisdiction. Please do the search and correct me.
Well, yes and no. Read your closed, proprietary license agreements. ALL software is sold AS IS without warranty as to merchantability or fitness. The companies are not "on the hook" in any sense of legal liability.
They are "on the hook" in the sense that, if the market decides their product is poor and there is a alternative product, the market will move there. In that sense, and in that sense only, closed vendors are "on the hook." Of course, this presumes the existence of a competitor. Does Microsoft have competition? In some markets, yes. In some, no.
So a product without a competitor is no different from an open source product. However, I would argue that market forces act on open source as well. The competition is for developers. Developers will work on a project that is useful and is used. They will tend not to work on projects that are not used. In this space, too, some open source products have competitors and some do not.
Sorry, I just have to ask: Did you mean Gordian Knot, or were you implying that Godel somehow relates to the Gordian Knot? I'm not nit-picking, I'm honestly wondering if you know something about Godel that I'd like to know, or if you were just mistyping "Gordian?"
A true-to-the-book period piece will be great! The original H.G.Wells novel is a great read, and great social comment. Think "Merchant/Ivory film, with Martians and death rays!"
The George Pal movie from the early 60's was quite good, but it was a modernized version. A Victorian version, set in England, will be a treat.
Who's in this version, anyways? I want to see Hugh Grant smoked to a cinder by the heat ray. (Early on in the film, please);-)
OK, I'm going to repond one more time, but I must tell you that you continue to make unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs and attitudes because I happen to be an American. It is insulting. I *never* supported our invasion of Iraq. I have opposed it from the first day. I never said I support the present administration. I never have, and I never will. But I do believe in the rule of law. Despite the mess and the questionable circumstances under which Bush acheived the White House, he is the President. I have my next opportunity to say something about that November 2nd, and believe me, I will.
Diplomacy is not a matter of black and white morality, however. In fact, Bush's efforts to paint it that way are his biggest problem (especially since he is unlaterally deciding on the palette!). Khadaffi is moving in the right direction and constructive engagement is the way to keep that going.
There's no doubt that American foreign policy can be a bit twisted. Compare our treatment of Cuba and China if you want to see some head-spinning hypocrisy. The biggest mistake we have made, IMHO, was, during the cold war, to support anyone who was anti-communist, no matter how fascist and brutal they were to their own people. We have propped up many a tin-pot dictator for our own political or economic ends. But take a look at your own history as a member of the British Commonwealth before you get holier-than-thou on these issues. Sure, as a people you have developed a more refined and enlightened foreign policy, but go back just 70 years to the age of Empire and you'll see your own government acting in ways every bit as ethnocentric and arrogant as the US today.
Bush fooled many in our own Congress as well. The assumption of many (myself included) was that the bill seeking authorization for military action in Iraq was part of the persuasion necessary to get the weapons inpectors in there. It made sense. I "misunderestimated" the cowboy tendencies of this administration. But you are *wrong*, dead wrong to paint the whole of the American people with the Bush administration brush.
And bashing like you do doesn't persuade, it gets people's backs up. I think Bush had an opportunity following the vicious attacks on the United States on 9/11 to gather the sympathy and goodwill of the nations of the world into a chance to bring human rights and just government to the more despotic regions of the world. Instead, he wasted it, squandered it in trying to finish "daddy's war."
I also think he had a chance to leave a lasting legacy in what might have become known as "the Bush Doctrine" when he announced that United States would not distinguish between terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. Our action in Afghanistan was, I think, justified under this and was a legitimate exercise of a nation's right of self-defense. But he squandered this too by making irresponsible (and, it turns out, false) associations between Al Queda and Hussein's government. By not allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their work and by (falsely) accusing Iraq of having WMDs (and believe me, the one "good" reason to rush to war seems to me to be if the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs), they blew it again.
They (the Bush Administration) say "America is safer," but I don't think we are. Our allies mistrust us, and our enemies are being driven together because of our actions. Do you see why your broad-brush characterization of Americans offends me? You accuse us of arrogance about the rest of the world and then you turn an equally benighted and offensive eye on me.
So, for the record, I think the toppling of the Taliban regime was a legitimate act of self-defense. I think everything else the Bush adminstration has done has been irresponsible, short-sighted, and self-serving. And, as in all previous posts I have madein this discussion, I blame the press more than the adminsitration for not daring to say the Emporer is buck-naked.
I have faith in the Linux kernel because I keep tabs on the lkml, and I know that these guys are concerned about doing a good job, and that there are some well-qualified people amoung them. I have faith on other Open Source projects for similar reasons - that even though I'm not qualified to evaluate their security, others who are, do. It is a good idea some time to skim mailing list archives for the software you use, from time to time, just to see the attitudes of developers and contributers.
I agree that Open Source/Free Software is a model that allows for a higher degree of confidence than closed and proprietary, and I agree that heavily used and heavily developed software of that type is likely to be "better" (how to quantify? Difficult problem.) than closed software, I do not think you can assume because something is open that it is secure. I have seen some appalingly bad code in open source projects.
I don't know who modded you overrated, because I think there is some merit in what you say. I think the present administration was going to attack Iraq no matter what and 9/11 was a mere pretext.
If "badness" or "dangerousness" were the requirement for unilateral invasion, we'd have to invade a few other countries as well.
Bush asserts in speeches that "America is safer." But ask youself this: If China decided to invade Taiwan tomorrow, what could the US do about it? (Not that I expect this; I don't think China is that irresponsibly ruled right now.) Not much right away. Too much of our military is too heavily engaged elsewhere. Our capacity to respond in defense of our nation and our interests is severely reduced. We would have to reintroduce conscription and spend a massive amount of money on arms.
However, Libya's ruler has renounced terrorism publicly. He has not been seen to be funding, sponsoring, or harboring terrorist organizations. He has been seen to be arresting individuals known to be terrorists. In the carrot-and-stick world of diplomacy, rewarding him is the right thing to do. But you are right. He is as brutal and fascist a dictator as Saddam Hussein was.
I think, however, you are being too harsh on the "average American." Remember, Bush was not elected by the American people. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court because the election was too close to call. Even though Gore clearly won the popular vote; Presidents are not elected by popular vote. They are elected by the "winner-takes-all" electoral college. As bizzare as that often seems to the rest of the world, that system usually leads to a clear winner and has made our executive transitions of power the most stable in the Western World. It just sort of messed us up this time.
As for why the election was so close, again, here, as in my post that started this thread, I blame the press. The "average American" you denegrate is bombarded by messages tailored to manipulate the most while offending the least. Meanwhile the press reports on polls and the effects of campaign tactics on the polls instead of teaching about issues of government and pointing out lies. Instead, as I said, they bring in "experts" who are essentially advocates for one side and they parrot a set of talking points prepared for them by that side.
Government and politics are messy and complicated. But the press know that messy and complicated is both hard work and less popular than the beauty contest, so they take the lazy way out and report the beauty contest.
The most "through the looking glass" element of this is that the best deconstruction of the political manipulation machine is to be found on Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central. That's bizzare. CNN should be deconstructing the talking points.
I don't think the distribution of intelligence and wisdom is any different in the United States than anywhere else. But brains think on information, and the political machines and the media companies are in a bizzare embrace that prevents useful information from reaching our brains. I think it is just plain wrong to look at what America does and conclude that the American people are "dumbasses." You are guilty of the same kind of smug arrogance that people constantly accuse the US of exercising. The politicians have learned how to play "the news cycle" like a musical instrument, and the press has forgotten their responsibility "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." They are allowing themselves to be played because they are access junkies. They don't want to risk their access. Well, damn access. Did you know that the press "is not allowed" to show the caskets bearing home the American dead from Iraq? As I read the First Amendement, the government can't do that. Well, government isn't doing it, really. They're just letting the press know that they won't talk to them if they show the caskets. The first time a new organization caved to such pressure, real poli
To me, what we need is more Michael Moores, not fewer. Passionate people comitted to advocacy are what we need. Impassioned, biased as hell, clamoring for attention, screaming for justice. The problem is we have focus-group tested messages, campaigns designed to offend the fewest, messages targeted to motivate specific hot button issues and worse, specific fears, and we have journalists who would rather report simple polls than question policies.
In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.
Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.
We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.
FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.
Acoustic Quatar. Of course I know it is Qatar, but my fingers are well trained to always follow "Q" with "U" since, in English, this is almost always the case. Sorry for the typo!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I should know better than to be imprecise in a forum like this. Copper-Indium di-Selenide cells are, as of the last time I checked (which is a number of years ago now) the highest efficiency. I haven't seen numbers on Gallium-Arsenide. I am aware of research on other semiconductors in this area, but I was shown the info under an NDA and I haven't seen any products (it was a Thomas Mowles, Ph.D. who clued me in back in the mid 90's).
I am NOT a chemist, physicist, or EE. I'm just an interested amateur.
I do, however, stand by my statement about mono and polycrystalline silicon being inefficient because of their use of indirect bandgap energies. It takes about 300kWH/kg to refine moncrystalline silicon and, because of the indirect absorption, the cells must be thick to achieve good efficiency. This makes their energy cost quite high. They do payback, and in only a few years, but I suspect that there are potential thin-film semiconductor materials that will have similar efficiency to monocrystalline silicon at much lower energy cost to manufacture.
You were quite right to call my on my sloppy statements (as I was by others on other imprecise statements I made).
Polycrystalline and amorphous silicon cells are only in demand because of the high energy cost to manufacture of moncrystalline silicon. They will never be as efficient as moncrystalline silicon, as you rightly say.
I was being quite sloppy in mixing economic "efficiency" (cost) with energy efficiency (the coefficient of energy throughput).
So thanks for correcting me.
I was not comparing to other silicon-based solutions. I was comparing to CIS and Cd-Te cells.
Again, you've caught me being sloppy. I'm talking about total system efficiency, not just the efficiency of the individual components. A lead-acid battery is more efficient than electrolysis, but electrolyized hydrogen used in a fuel cell is potentially much more efficient in a working PV generator or vehicle than batteries.
;-)
Here's a comprehensive study on lead-acid batteries from Sandia Nat'l Laboratories:
Lead Acid Battery Efficiency Study
The combustion of hydrogen releases energy at higher efficiency than a lead-acid battery, but an internal combustion engine is much less efficient than that (I don't have numbers), thanks to losses in the engine itself, but the difference here is energy density: A tank of compressed hydrogen can store more energy in much less mass than a battery, making it more practical, especially in a vehicle. Fuel cells could theoretically improve the picture a great deal, making hydrogen the winner by a mile (more scientific precision!
AFAIK, nobody has a economically viable fuel cell that can compete in payback terms with chemical batteries right now. Also, I'm just an interested amateur, I do not work or research in this field!
A good (but light) summary of these issues can be found at http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1999/ph162/l10h.html
Once again, replying to myself. "like in Minnesota" should have been "live in Minnesota."
This site is of interest:
NASA insolation at specified location. Just enter your latitude and longitude and the year, and you'll get day-by-day watts/square meter figures.
You are quite right. My memory was faulty (2kW would be sweet, wouldn't it?) and your figure is a good approximate total insolation at the earth's surface.
But the equator is not the best place to put PV. Hours of sunlight and electrical use patterns change things somewhat. I like in Minnesota, and we have longer summer days here than at the equator and summer is also when electrical use is at its highest. We get more total solar energy in June that you do at the equator. Of course, in the winter, we get far less. It is a common misconception that PV is best in the tropics. Not necessarily so.
Of course, insolation at the equator is greater than here, but not by as much as the longer day offsets.
Your boundary figures are right on the mark, however. Thanks for the correction.
Boy, I should preview at least three times! I mean I don't think the stability of oil will increase, and I don't think the price will steadily decrease anymore. If you adjust gas prices for inflation, we're still below its historic highs.
I also omitted a few words in my typing haste like "we'll see much" and so on. Forgive my haste!
The 200w/sq. m is based on monocrystalline silicon PV. This is the cheapest but also almost the least efficient PV solution because the actual absorption is in the indirect bandgap energy of silicon.
There are thin-film PV solutions with much higher efficiencies (and much higher costs, and much higher toxicity involved in production). But there is also research going on on other semiconductor materials the hold out promise of high efficiency at fairly low cost. (I don't think we'll ever make thin films where there aren't some danged scary chemicals involved.)
Even so, your point is well made. Insolation is such that even if you could acheive 100% PV efficiency, you would still only have about 2kW/sq. meter.
Any realistic ground-based fuel production will require large arrays of PV. You'll need a lot of area to power your car.
But there are plenty of people powering their homes entirely off PV (entirely is a bit of stretch -- they use Propane or other combustion for a lot, including, often, for refrigeration).
People also have entirely solar charged electric cars, but again, they require a fairly large of field of PV panels. The real advantage here is that the efficiency of hydrogen as the energy storage is much greater than the efficiency of chemical batteries.
And, oh yeah, there are 100% solar powered cars right now that run on what they generate at the moment. But these are the cars in the American Solar Challenge which are a long way from practical household commuter cars.
But we have barely begun to put resources and research and capital into energy alternatives. I have always said that it wouldn't begin until oil prices went way up. I'm not even sure that we'll a lot of progress now. But I'm quite confident that the stability and price of oil will not steadily increase anymore. We're already seeing wind power become a fairly significant energy source. PV will follow. I think it will become common for homes to have grid-intertied solar power systems.
Alternative fuel cars are coming. Hybrids are just a first step. I don't know which technology will catch on, fuel cells or hydrogen combustion, but I'd bet we'll see petrochemical powered vehicles in the minority in my lifetime.
(I'm in my late 30's).
While I sympathize with what you are saying, I think, if you will forgive me for saying so, you are making a classic blunder. I don't think there is an "American culture." We do not and never have had a monoculture. There have always been people who go to Opera and ballet, and there have always been people who like to watch two dogs maul each other to death.
Reality TV is voyeurism and scopophilia, but those too are nothing new.
While I think a person can make judgements and decisions about culture, I think it helps to try to develop an almost anthropological detachement when comes to making the next step: Judging people to be inferior because of their tastes. That is a dangerous leap, from judging culture by your tastes and predjudices to judging people by their tastes.
I have found that most of the people I have met are good and thoughtful people, no matter whether they like Edward Albee or Eddie Albert. You'd be surprised how intelligent some people are who like to watch "The Bachelor."
Of course you can judge culture, and you should. Of course aspiring to a mature asthetic is a good thing. But condescension based on relative sophistication is nothing but arrogance. To trot out a handy cliche: There is no accounting for taste.
1) Is America safer?
I have a number of friends who were former officers in our military at every level from Army Lieutenants to officers of flag rank.
Their opinions express to me have been mixed as to which candidate they would support. But they all indicate to me that they believe the military is over-extended. They believe that our ability to respond to global threats has been seriously diminished by the number of operations currently underway.
(For the record, I personally tend towards Kerry, and, also for the record, I have not had the chance to discuss the matter with my knowledgeable friends since the recent announcement of redeployment plans a few weeks ago.)
So, is America safer? If a major conflict were to occour now, whether between India and Pakistan, or between China and Taiwan, or, say between Iran and Israel, what would our options be?
What plans would you (either candidate) have to ensure that our military is able both to prosecute the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, stabilize Iraq, and handle an international crisis?
2) Winning the war
The cold war was fought with deterrence. Anti-American militant Islamic fundamentalism seems to lack an obvious deterrent. To win the war, it seems to me, we have to win the war of ideas, because we cannot either kill everyone who hates us, or deter them from attack.
How would you win the war for the hearts and minds of the world? Or would you not try? Would you maintain that force can protect us? If so, how?
(I realize that this is a bit of leading question and I invite people to dispute the premise that we must make them NOT hate us. If there's a way to win without defusing the hate, I'd love to hear it.)
3) The palestinian question
Another leading question: The situation between the Israeli government and the people who identify themselves as Palestinians (coupled with the Islamic world's perception that we one-sidedly support Israel) is the major contributor to anti-Americanism in the region. To me, the single biggest step forward in winning the hearts and minds would be to find a peaceful settlement of that conflict.
What is your plan to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
As a middle-aged uber geek, I must point out that it is "grok," and the word is from R. A. Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land."
The line from H2G2 is "sass that hoopy Ford Prefect."
I'm now going back to reveling in my dweebdom...
I seem to recall a little population reducing event between 1936 and 1945 that seemed to do a pretty good job. It wasn't microbial, but it was more than adequate.
Hmm. I think you're joking. But how about this? No taxes at all while you're alive, but a 95% estate tax. A married couple is a single person for the purpose of this tax (both must die before the tax is assessed).
Yep. No taxes. Until you're dead. Then uncle sam gets almost all of it. Every generation must make it entirely on its own.
Equally implausible, but I think a more fun radical idea than yours.
Did you notice that he only allowed inspectors back in after the authorization bill passed? I thought that was the point and what the administration wanted. I thought they wanted to make sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. I'm saying I was wrong about the Bush administration intent. I thought the purpose was to get inspectors in. I thought it was a means to an end, not an end in itself. I was wrong.
;-)
BTW, I'm getting hammered "offtopic." I don't think it should be possible to moderate any child of a post already marked "offtopic" as "offtopic." Your post, this post, and the parent of your post are on-topic. Only the initial one is off-topic.
But how to mod this message? Half of it is off-topic by my own definition. The funny thing is I have mod points right now.
Sorry, responding to parent's sig. And the only reason I wrote the post was because I resent the Republican assertion that to be against Bush is to be unpatriotic or to wish our armed forces ill. This is simply not so.
/. who said Bush was spoiling for war as hysterics who did not understand diplomacy. How humbling to find out how completely wrong I was.
Also, opposition to Bush doesn't imply complete opposition to the policies of his administration (just most of them in my case). For example, I completely support our intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime, apart from being every bit as oppressive to its own people as Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq (perhaps more so), was also harboring Osama Bin Laden and allowing terrorist training camps to operate within its borders. Those "institutions" actually carried out a massive attack on our soil (remember?) The toppling of that regime was a legitimate act of national defense.
At this point, I am convinced that we had no such justification for our action in Iraq. I also suspect that the Bush administration knew that (although I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt). When Bush pressed for congressional authorization, I honestly believed it was to back up the demand for inspections with a credible threat of force. I wrote off the people here on
So there is room for legitimate disagreement in a free society, and I believe that the United States is still a (barely) free society. As soon as loyal opposition is branded treason (Anne Coulter) however, we are in deep, deep trouble.
So, again, I support our troops. I oppose our President. My right to do that is patriotism (as, I think, your right to support our President is as well. It's the linkage of the two I mistrust, not your right to support the President).
I support our troops and our future President.
Kerry 2004.
Really? I'm a Democrat, and I believe rich people (and this includes me) deserve to pay more taxes because we have more money and we benefit more from society than do poor people (which I would not classify as the "middle class," rather as a family that earns less than [IMHO] about $35,000/year).
I also have never taken "retribution" on anyone for disagreeing with me, unless voting against your candidate counts.
Please do the Lexis search. I don't have access to that resource and I am not aware of a single successful software liability plaintiff in any US jurisdiction. Please do the search and correct me.
Well, yes and no. Read your closed, proprietary license agreements. ALL software is sold AS IS without warranty as to merchantability or fitness. The companies are not "on the hook" in any sense of legal liability.
They are "on the hook" in the sense that, if the market decides their product is poor and there is a alternative product, the market will move there. In that sense, and in that sense only, closed vendors are "on the hook." Of course, this presumes the existence of a competitor. Does Microsoft have competition? In some markets, yes. In some, no.
So a product without a competitor is no different from an open source product. However, I would argue that market forces act on open source as well. The competition is for developers. Developers will work on a project that is useful and is used. They will tend not to work on projects that are not used. In this space, too, some open source products have competitors and some do not.
Money is not the only market force.
Sorry, I just have to ask: Did you mean Gordian Knot, or were you implying that Godel somehow relates to the Gordian Knot? I'm not nit-picking, I'm honestly wondering if you know something about Godel that I'd like to know, or if you were just mistyping "Gordian?"
From the wikipedia: The Gordian Knot
A true-to-the-book period piece will be great! The original H.G.Wells novel is a great read, and great social comment. Think "Merchant/Ivory film, with Martians and death rays!"
;-)
The George Pal movie from the early 60's was quite good, but it was a modernized version. A Victorian version, set in England, will be a treat.
Who's in this version, anyways? I want to see Hugh Grant smoked to a cinder by the heat ray. (Early on in the film, please)
OK, I'm going to repond one more time, but I must tell you that you continue to make unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs and attitudes because I happen to be an American. It is insulting. I *never* supported our invasion of Iraq. I have opposed it from the first day. I never said I support the present administration. I never have, and I never will. But I do believe in the rule of law. Despite the mess and the questionable circumstances under which Bush acheived the White House, he is the President. I have my next opportunity to say something about that November 2nd, and believe me, I will.
Diplomacy is not a matter of black and white morality, however. In fact, Bush's efforts to paint it that way are his biggest problem (especially since he is unlaterally deciding on the palette!). Khadaffi is moving in the right direction and constructive engagement is the way to keep that going.
There's no doubt that American foreign policy can be a bit twisted. Compare our treatment of Cuba and China if you want to see some head-spinning hypocrisy. The biggest mistake we have made, IMHO, was, during the cold war, to support anyone who was anti-communist, no matter how fascist and brutal they were to their own people. We have propped up many a tin-pot dictator for our own political or economic ends. But take a look at your own history as a member of the British Commonwealth before you get holier-than-thou on these issues. Sure, as a people you have developed a more refined and enlightened foreign policy, but go back just 70 years to the age of Empire and you'll see your own government acting in ways every bit as ethnocentric and arrogant as the US today.
Bush fooled many in our own Congress as well. The assumption of many (myself included) was that the bill seeking authorization for military action in Iraq was part of the persuasion necessary to get the weapons inpectors in there. It made sense. I "misunderestimated" the cowboy tendencies of this administration. But you are *wrong*, dead wrong to paint the whole of the American people with the Bush administration brush.
And bashing like you do doesn't persuade, it gets people's backs up. I think Bush had an opportunity following the vicious attacks on the United States on 9/11 to gather the sympathy and goodwill of the nations of the world into a chance to bring human rights and just government to the more despotic regions of the world. Instead, he wasted it, squandered it in trying to finish "daddy's war."
I also think he had a chance to leave a lasting legacy in what might have become known as "the Bush Doctrine" when he announced that United States would not distinguish between terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. Our action in Afghanistan was, I think, justified under this and was a legitimate exercise of a nation's right of self-defense. But he squandered this too by making irresponsible (and, it turns out, false) associations between Al Queda and Hussein's government. By not allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their work and by (falsely) accusing Iraq of having WMDs (and believe me, the one "good" reason to rush to war seems to me to be if the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs), they blew it again.
They (the Bush Administration) say "America is safer," but I don't think we are. Our allies mistrust us, and our enemies are being driven together because of our actions. Do you see why your broad-brush characterization of Americans offends me? You accuse us of arrogance about the rest of the world and then you turn an equally benighted and offensive eye on me.
So, for the record, I think the toppling of the Taliban regime was a legitimate act of self-defense. I think everything else the Bush adminstration has done has been irresponsible, short-sighted, and self-serving. And, as in all previous posts I have madein this discussion, I blame the press more than the adminsitration for not daring to say the Emporer is buck-naked.
I agree that Open Source/Free Software is a model that allows for a higher degree of confidence than closed and proprietary, and I agree that heavily used and heavily developed software of that type is likely to be "better" (how to quantify? Difficult problem.) than closed software, I do not think you can assume because something is open that it is secure. I have seen some appalingly bad code in open source projects.
I don't know who modded you overrated, because I think there is some merit in what you say. I think the present administration was going to attack Iraq no matter what and 9/11 was a mere pretext.
If "badness" or "dangerousness" were the requirement for unilateral invasion, we'd have to invade a few other countries as well.
Bush asserts in speeches that "America is safer." But ask youself this: If China decided to invade Taiwan tomorrow, what could the US do about it? (Not that I expect this; I don't think China is that irresponsibly ruled right now.) Not much right away. Too much of our military is too heavily engaged elsewhere. Our capacity to respond in defense of our nation and our interests is severely reduced. We would have to reintroduce conscription and spend a massive amount of money on arms.
However, Libya's ruler has renounced terrorism publicly. He has not been seen to be funding, sponsoring, or harboring terrorist organizations. He has been seen to be arresting individuals known to be terrorists. In the carrot-and-stick world of diplomacy, rewarding him is the right thing to do. But you are right. He is as brutal and fascist a dictator as Saddam Hussein was.
I think, however, you are being too harsh on the "average American." Remember, Bush was not elected by the American people. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court because the election was too close to call. Even though Gore clearly won the popular vote; Presidents are not elected by popular vote. They are elected by the "winner-takes-all" electoral college. As bizzare as that often seems to the rest of the world, that system usually leads to a clear winner and has made our executive transitions of power the most stable in the Western World. It just sort of messed us up this time.
As for why the election was so close, again, here, as in my post that started this thread, I blame the press. The "average American" you denegrate is bombarded by messages tailored to manipulate the most while offending the least. Meanwhile the press reports on polls and the effects of campaign tactics on the polls instead of teaching about issues of government and pointing out lies. Instead, as I said, they bring in "experts" who are essentially advocates for one side and they parrot a set of talking points prepared for them by that side.
Government and politics are messy and complicated. But the press know that messy and complicated is both hard work and less popular than the beauty contest, so they take the lazy way out and report the beauty contest.
The most "through the looking glass" element of this is that the best deconstruction of the political manipulation machine is to be found on Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central. That's bizzare. CNN should be deconstructing the talking points.
I don't think the distribution of intelligence and wisdom is any different in the United States than anywhere else. But brains think on information, and the political machines and the media companies are in a bizzare embrace that prevents useful information from reaching our brains. I think it is just plain wrong to look at what America does and conclude that the American people are "dumbasses." You are guilty of the same kind of smug arrogance that people constantly accuse the US of exercising. The politicians have learned how to play "the news cycle" like a musical instrument, and the press has forgotten their responsibility "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." They are allowing themselves to be played because they are access junkies. They don't want to risk their access. Well, damn access. Did you know that the press "is not allowed" to show the caskets bearing home the American dead from Iraq? As I read the First Amendement, the government can't do that. Well, government isn't doing it, really. They're just letting the press know that they won't talk to them if they show the caskets. The first time a new organization caved to such pressure, real poli
To me, what we need is more Michael Moores, not fewer. Passionate people comitted to advocacy are what we need. Impassioned, biased as hell, clamoring for attention, screaming for justice. The problem is we have focus-group tested messages, campaigns designed to offend the fewest, messages targeted to motivate specific hot button issues and worse, specific fears, and we have journalists who would rather report simple polls than question policies.
In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.
Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.
We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.
FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.
Do likewise!
Acoustic Quatar. Of course I know it is Qatar, but my fingers are well trained to always follow "Q" with "U" since, in English, this is almost always the case. Sorry for the typo!