Glancing at your response., I do not immediate see anything much for me to disagree about therein, in the response you made. Does that puzzle you? But this particular thread set is about government investing in what might be a "profit" making enterprise, some sort of green thing. Let us see if I can help you out here. You do understand that nothing anyone can say about anything is "True"? So there is going to be an aspect of what you say that is "not True". One way to get at *policy* to be derived from your statements is to look at the "corner cases".; Do you understand "corner case". Nice computer nerd term. I am pointing out a way in which your position is false, in which it breaks down, in which it does not apply.
Now, if you come of the rant, drop the silly free market ideology, government is Evil, etc, we might get to think deeply about why we are in major nation-threatening disaster mode and what to do about it, which will be a policy statement... Leaving aside all the theory and all the factoids and all the polemics: which of these two alternatives do you in your gut choose: government building infrastructure or government bailing out speculative "investments"? Now I am a little more complicated than to say "infrastructure" as it is understood generally is exactly what we need, but I really think I have asked a useful question of *you*. And in a deep way, these alternatives cannot both be chosen, in a way deeper than tax/spend/balanced budget/accounting arguments.
Oh my. So silly. As I noted, if the wealth of a world is suitably increased by the investment of paper currency freshly printed, then the printing does not cause inflation. Your silliness stems in part from the idea that money as you are thinking of it is real. And the core argument of the thread was simply that government investments have poor accounting ROI.
Your idea of microsociety behavior as meaniful on this point is also silly, but predictable. For you, a solitary atom is the same as a big cloud of neutral hydrogen, except for a scalar attribute.
Oh my again. You are quite valuable to me. I had an interesting insight. The insight is not for me to be repeated, but it started with the correlation between your stuff and "The parable of the bees". Do you know this text and the legal case over it? If not, you might google around and be amused.
"free market"is sort of a funny idea. You need to get over adam smith, hmm, and real real quick. But nicely done polemics. With respect to governments investing, try this.
US government (feds) can print money. If they invest that money in (to keep it simple for you) infrastructure, then that supports the general welfare (remember that up in the unamendable preamble of the constitution) which, as intended, gives everyone a better shot at the pursuit of happiness, which often means some possibly greedy, but quite useful, industrial capitialist, does some good for himself and others, if the government keeps him in line. The really hard part for you to understand is that if the investment produces more wealth than the investment, even though the monetary ROI sucks because of present-value considerations, then this is a win.
As an example, look at the ROI on the Eire canal. But see also that we are still get wealth of a simple kind from it. But people like you really hate Hamilton, really for building the canals.
default projections are based on a refusal to prioritize... Let us say you want to obey the 14th amendment. Not a problem. Let us say you wanted real bad to bail out the speculators. Then there is a problem.
Pooh, I checked my inbox for the slugs to cite, but could not find them. here is my memory.
14th amendment says we *will* pay for some things. Figure that is debt service, social security, medicare, congressional and other government pensions:-), and DOD. Does not require us to keep things going otherwise. Current receipts will do the absolute requirements just fine.
The slugs had various people running the particular numbers. As opposed to, well, however you want to characterize what the Treasury secretary says.
"not a problem" is sort of as applied to the "possible", where "possible" ultimately relates to laws, sometimes of physics.:-)
Well, maybe not for the flame, but for the "if you are human" phrasing. Aside from flaky, it is not useful in this context, which is about the same thing.
Thank you for your reply. Let me do a bit of nominalism. My use of the word "productive" is as a physical economy word and thus excludes, hmm, casio revenues, and.. casino economy revenues. I sort of imagine the projections you reference are using the current definitions of GDP and thus include how much profit the investment banks make off of whatever is the current bubble creation program.
work for prc not necessarily work for us and visa versa
"not necessarily" is pretty much a law of the universe. But historically, a lot of countries have had success paying close attention to the policies we used in the early days. And the Chinese still look at us and do some emulation. For instance, the leadership of the chinese man on the moon programs figures apollo gave us tech leadership of the world for 20 years, per some quotes I do not trust. No one is going to claim that apollo did not have a giant economic payoff. We cannot even manage to keep processing economically critical data from existing space assets.
I figure you want to do a nice detailed axiom based scalar analysis. Screw that. If you are actually human, try for some cartesian and recognize that we are going though policy driven negative phase shifts and your axiom set went out the window, probably about 2000, but anyone actually paying attention and sane knew it was gone in 2007. But that probably was not you.
Hah, and you want to evaluate "policy" in terms of "context". The implication of my above remarks are that "context" is changing a lot faster than your evaluation capability.
Here is my evaluation: the US will not tolerate dictatorship.
I claim the following are the congress critters operating assumptions:
1) we want to put a lot of money into stuff that is *against* the general welfare 2) we do not want to put money into stuff that "improves* the general welfare
Now consider a possible proxy for general welfare:
increase the productive part of the economy by say 2% a year instead of negative percents
Oops, if done, no more worries about the trust fund running out of money anytime soon
On this site, we could probably come up today with 20 good ways to do 2% increases
Talk to the Chinese, today, and among the things they are actively doing there, hey, 20 things to do 2% increases
talk to DC types, the priorities are, well, we already covered that in general and we all kind of know anyway. Do we really need to be specific?
my thought here is that lots of people are avoiding using accurate words, if the words invoke a real context. You might look at this bit of nominalism and see where it applies around you.
Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is silly. Instead of looking at budgeting numbers as scalar and instantaneous, look at just some recent patterns where "slashing" makes the deficit *worse*. California is the first data set to come to mind. Greece is in the headlines today. Or the same take, from a different angle, look how well bailing out speculators has worked for us. Inside people's heads is the idea that interesting things like the universe and all its parts are composed of hmm, scalars, continuous functions, predictable by statistical methods, mechanical, etc. Do you really want to claim that way our species made its living over the past 4 million years (yah, I know) is predictable. If not, then you might see that the way the world makes its living today may not be easily improved by a bean counter. But from bean counters, we get "slash" as a way to make things better.
Maybe the idea of melting pot had to do with ideas, rather than geography. The colonies and the early United States had some ideas that simply were not allowed to be even talked about elsewhere. In the 1820's, maybe 20 million came in, and in a generation, the kids had bought in to these ideas and were willing to die for them. Now consider last century's european history with immigrants. There *is* a difference. Let us label the difference "melting pot". Alas, it is then one of those words, like "general welfare", that are immaterial, and thus, for you, I expect do not exist.
My numbers are a little off, but close enough for having being pulled out of half century old memory
Here is something from wikipedia
Immigration 1790 to 1849
The numbers who came during the first three decades of this era were relatively small. That changed, however, by the 1820s. This period ushered in the first era of mass migration. From that decade through the 1880s, about 15 million immigrants made their way to the United States, many choosing agriculture in the Midwest and Northeast, while others flocked to cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore.
Factors in both Europe and the United States shaped this transition. The end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe liberated young men from military service back home at the same time that industrialization and agricultural consolidation in England, Scandinavia, and much of central Europe transformed local economies and created a class of young people who could not earn a living in the new order. Demand for immigrant labor shot up with two major developments: the settlement of the American Midwest after the inauguration of the Erie Canal in 1825 and the related rise of the port of New York, and the first stirrings of industrial development in the United States, particularly in textile production, centered in New England.
Immigrants tended to cluster by group in particular neighborhoods, cities, and regions. The American Midwest, as it emerged in the middle of the 19th century as one of the world’s most fertile agricultural regions, became home to tight-knit, relatively homogeneous communities of immigrants from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Bohemia, and various regions of what in 1871 would become Germany.
This era saw the first large-scale arrival of Catholic immigrants to the largely Protestant United States, and these primarily Irish women and men inspired the nation’s first serious bout of nativism, which combined an antipathy to immigrants in general with a fear of Catholicism and an aversion to the Irish. Particularly in the decades just before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), this nativism spawned a powerful political movement and even a political party, the Know Nothings, which made anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism central to its political agenda. This period also witnessed the arrival of small numbers of Chinese men to the American West. Native-born Americans reacted intensely and negatively to their arrival, leading to the passage of the only piece of U.S. immigration legislation that specifically named a group as the focus of restrictive policy, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. In the early decades of the U.S. government, no official records were kept and immigration is estimated to have averaged only about 6000 people a year. During the time, wars in Europe and America severely limited travel and immigration; these started in 1789 with the French Revolution, and were followed by the Napoleonic Wars from 1792 to 1814, as well as America's War of 1812 (1812–1814) with Britain. While the fighting generally restricted immigration, it also prompted some, including French refugees from the Haitian slave revolt. By 1808 also, Congress had banned the importation of slaves, slowing that trans-Atlantic human trafficking to a trickle.
Based on available records, immigration totaled 8,385 in 1820, with immigration totals gradually increasing to 23,322 by the year 1830; for the 1820s decade immigration more than
silly bunny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238 this emits alpha particles. hard to make something explosive I figure. Do you figure at all? Probably much too much.
Here is a little background of general interest. http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=598732652 Figure we are out of the 238 and I suppose the way things are, we might never have any more. Another way to shut down the space program.? But the slug is from a year ago. So, you tell me, is the supply situation any better? If not, maybe you should look around for some patterns to get a handle on this sort of thing.
In passing, I could use an electric, even very small, with even only a 10 kilometer range. Mostly, I do not go far or need to go fast. And I did a back of the envelope and the problems at that trivial level seem to be all government and anti-competitive stuff, if there is a difference. The actual price should in fact be rather nominal for an entire car at that range.
One of the problems is that a minimal and even legal auto body is straightforward and should be cheap, you pretty much cannot buy one new and off the shelf from any one who has the mass production capability. But.. I am no expert.
I have run across this a few times. Here is something cute: the last time was some recent larouche organization research articles on multiple related phenomena. I guess you could search for "extended sensorium" there. If you are enough of a cartesian, you will have a lot of fun playing there.
Did you know that all the way back to Ben Franklin people have puzzled over audio sensations around Aurora. But we can at this point pretty much guarantee there are no air waves involved. But we can guarantee that the sounds are real, for some value of real.
Hah, I felt obliged to put in a link and found one I need to read. Try this:
On stealing high speed train tech... I figure I read that story some time ago. My recollection is the chinese had a unifed negotiation team whipsawing the different western vendors against each other. No stealing, just real clever hard ball. We are not even talkng MPAA pirating here. So what exactly is the criticism that generates "stealing".
Thanks for your answer. I am not sure that citing
generic economic historians is really meaniful, but your argument is rather pleasing in some ways. I do have the following sort of puzzle. Post world war II we went rapidly from a one wage earner family to a very strong necessity for two wage earner families. So I might think we should have gotten somewhat ahead of the game from the bigger workforce., particularly given that in a sense the population was fixed. Perhaps you might comment.
Generally, the quants, and everyone else, somehow thinks there is a stable relationship between fixed axiom systems and whatever they are trying to deal with. There are some problems with that.:-) I suppose particularly with time frame specifications, but if you try that approach and pay attention, things get extremely funny, in several senses, including humor.
for some reason I think here of Malthus. Of course, there are a lot of really true ways to realize he is full of it. Except, if we managed to be really stupid for 40 or 50 years, sort of like Malthus, then.. well, we would be looking at an acute maltusian crisis, not our present obvious and clear glorious future for our kids and so on.:-)
I cannot imagine what would cause such stupidity however, so my musing are pointless.
Since we want to quote einstein a bit, let me do a little concept web. This article as best I can see started out on stuff like Genesis I vs Big Bang. This sort of confined controversy is going to,look a lot difference than the "truth of the existence of the electron", faith, science, religion, whatever. I will upset people and say they both Gensis I and Big Bang "creation myths". So I like the Navaho creation myth best, maybe then Genesis I, and lastly Big Bang. Now I wish to defend Genisis I. Hmm, 4k years ago, Genesis I was high end science! By imposing a progressing on the creation, they got pretty close to the "progressing" of the cosmos and evolution. They also got in some teleology. Now Big Bang does not like teleology or progress concepts. Pretty much Science says we do not see a conscious purposer around on that scale of power. And the progress is pretty much accidental, unless we get into some interesting non-equalibrium/thermodynamics/chaos stuff and we are not quite sure what is possible to know there yet. Oh, Big Bang does have oddities like inflation and uncaused causes.
I am sort of a monist pantheisis and the Navaho figure the world is made of wind and I am an attributive sort. And the wind is always changing and it is invisible and I like lots of changing, and I am not quite sure how all that changing happens, so invisible stuff is good.:-)
Big Bang is going to look pretty silly to a monist because it has all this silly reductionism so the universe is just a machine. Now we get to Einstein. A reporter asked him what would be the next big fundamental proof in scince. He answered "A proof that the universe was friendly" Consider: does a machine has a Being such that the machine is "friendly". If the universe has such a Being, is it a machine?
But on proof of Big Bang, there is a straight forward proof method. Get the creation of new universes embedded into the planet's economy! Weird you out? What is the best demo of the truth of General Relativity.? Try that we use it to put spacecraft out to Jupiter and everything works out. (I do note the magic of coming up with simply an idea and over 70 years it gets more and more confirmation every time a new tool comes along. Of course, in a mechanical universe, this is an impossibility.)
Enjoy. Do not get too serious. Instead of polemics, joy at a universe of such grace and richness, (Einstein: finite but unbounded) that is just going to go on getting richer. Oops, I pissed on thermodynamics.:-) Lets all give Euler a golden shower!
Numbers. Numbers are not science, but I can hope that if there are some numbers, some science has been around.
EROI. Yah, I think EROI is real interesting. The numbers I see show over an *order of magnitude* difference in EROI on different techs. And the really great thing is that this difference does not exist as far as public discourse is concerned. Note that in spite of all our going back and forth, you save never been willing to state what besides the actual panel EROI needs to be considered. You have been willing to state food for teachers of builders of ships for transporting materials need not be considered. Yet this sort of issue is cited to as the reason there is no reliable EROI on solar electricity.
Quoting: I don't see any need to rush into solar, the hope for it is that costs reach the point where people install it because it quickly saves them money, not that society mandates it and accidentally throws away a bunch of energy. As long as there isn't too much subsidization, solar panels that cheap should have a decent EROI.
I guess I am too subtle: Hey, cheap solar panels does not equal high EROI. Let's see. I have talked about what other direct objects have to be included. I have talked about all the indirect objects that might be reasonably included, picking one that was very indirect to illustrate the extent of the issue. I have talked about the difference between straight-forward physical things like kw-h and constructs like the USD. I have alluded to issues between reductionism and say monism. I have proposed conspiracy theories. I have alluded to modeling issues. And your best response is sort of "hey, my neighbor might think it saves him some cash flow". You know, the reason I did the challenge was the idea that you might actually say something that *meant* something, such that it could be assigned a true/false value. As I say, no one really cares on these sort of topics, but I get some fun out of such stuff.
Try this. Try to say what direct objects should be included in analyzing your neighbors solar electricity system EROI. This is certainly directly relevant to "city border issues", where we did start out.
My, thank for the response. As a scalar, an EROI of 1.0 is breakeven. You can be more qualitative than "sufficently high*.
I see some problems here.
1) I start out with the claim that running a city off of pv panels is not physically sane. You end up talking about how a pv panel install at your home might save you *money*. The scaling is so different as to make your argument silly and somehow you are waving your hands and making *money* a physical, but backing out at the last minute, thus showing some sense. I could manage to talk about money as a physical, but I doubt you can.
2) Here is somethiing you did in fact say:
(The food consumption inputs of the people that taught the kid are going to be so small when you distribute them over all the cargo and ships and kids that you end up with an exercise in completeness, not interesting information.
Now if you can demo that well enough, you are dealing in solving one of the *big* problems, thus the Nobel. But somehow you do not seem to have said it.
And in passing, cost of some electricity locally is say 3 cents a kw. Green energy locally is being subsidized at a level,of say 50 cents a kilowatt. I figure everyone around slashdot has a sense of this. So your last paragraph is like starting an argument out with "if the moon is made of green cheese..." Tell me again why I should be interested?
What we are saying here is pointless. You are trying to pretend to a rationality you do not show and no one really cares about. If you were good at playing rational, we could enjoy ourselves together, and not worry about whether anyone else cared. You like to shift the focus around and that can in fact be useful, but everytime you shift, the conceptual structure gets less sophisticated. kind of interesting. But I will end with a challenge: give me some actual EROI numbers on your proposed home pv system. Let us call it an off-grid system with an average load of 5kw, hmm, Oregon, Salem, ground mounted. Do a good job and you can push it at journals, maybe successfully even without a union card.
I think there is a nominalism problem here. EROI is not a dollars thing. It compares the energy inputs *in* to the energy produced *out*. So, you might think pv panels are great, and in fact for wind, the EROI in a narrow sense is quite good. But here in Oregon the big wind farms are all on the other side of the mountains from the population. So we get to spend about 700 million on new transmission lines. The energy inputs for transmission line construction are going to be *big* and the energy output will in fact be negative. So I hypothesis that the typical greenie academic will not do decent EROI calculations (or at least publish them).
As far as interesting vs completeness, you have a point, but if it is proposed to defend not including battery, inverter, and transmission lines in the EROI calculations, then we have some stinkiness going on. As far as the point directly, the whole generally acknowledged lack of a decent science basis for doing EROI is in fact the question of how far down the line we need to go to get good numbers. Now if you can actually defend your statement rigorously, then you have some science going on and if you have the right union cards, you should do some journal publications.
More broadly, if you are able to show that medium scale economic effects are negligible (even in a non-steady state environment) , then you have a nice Nobel coming your way. Hah, while you are it, show NP=P.
The idea about self-sufficency , aside from responding to some fine greenie anarachist inclinations, is that if you have to do a lot of long-distance transmission costs, the numbers on solar go way south. As far as EROI, your comment illustrates the flakiness of the approaches used. The EROI on the panels themselves might be pretty good. Now, do you chose to include in your energy inputs battery, inverter, and transmission line construction costs? And try this. Suppose you go down to Starbucks and get a latte. You are plugging into a world-wide economic network to gen up that cup of coffee . The energy inputs involved should properly include, IMO, the food production energy inputs of the teachers who taught the kid that grew up to build the ship that carried the coffee to the United States. Not only is this conceptual heresy to many people, it is is hard to do the math in the usual way. So, if you want to speak to EROI, do you really want to talk just about solar panel manufacturing cost?
And if you are interested in nuclear, there does not seem to be any claim that nukes do not have a positive EROI. Now change the regulatory environment so that they get built in 18 months right up next to the cities and on an assembly line basis, all? the numbers are going to be rosy. It is fun to look at, but you need to start with the idea that people mostly really cannot tolerate many kinds of fun!
The guy screwed the argument up. Try this: the sunlight falling on a city will generate less energy than that needed by the city to operate. In more detail, factories take up a lot of energy as compared to their area. So costs end up going way up and given the relatively diffuse nature of the energy source, you really do need magic tech to win. But here is the real deal. Try to figure out the "Energy Return on Investment" (EROI) on all that solar panel and batteries and transmission lines! I casually tried to figure it out a while ago. You might think there could be a 2 or 3 times return according to a meta-study. But the standard deviation is about that magnitude! There is no real science going on here and there are some hints that the most reliable results are such that the authors refuse to publish. So, you have a significant chance that you are really looking at yet another battery technology, not energy generation.
And then, when you look at "progress", one of the big drivers (playing out over billions of years) has been *increased* energy density. So I am all in favor of solar.... out near the orbit of mercury!
Just glancing here. Is the "major dose of radiation" you are referencing that ankle level beta emitter exposure a couple of workers got from wading in radioactive water without decent boots? Are you then okay with comparing it to that "major does of radiation" you get when you sunburn on the beach?
Some perspective is useful here. How many people in Japan have died from civilian nuclear power radiation exposure beginning-of-time-to-now vs from just-about-anything-else? Candidly, I do not see why anyone serious would consider either of our points *interesting*.
But here is a sort of oddity on "liquidators". I do not have a cite and I do not know anything about how the soviets did it, but I recall there have been in the US a cadre of workers who specialized in work in "hot" environments. Given the tight US occupational safety rules, they might have worked in the "hot" environment for but seconds per month, but they got paid full-time wages.
Now nothing you or I have said here has any significance, but the last item is at least a bit amusing. And I bet a lot of slashdotters would like that sort of job, even without any pushy economic stressors.:-)
Hah, there is a size issue. If you really really want your electricity from pv panels, you cannot tolerate much population density and have much electricity at the same time. The typical city does not have enough area to be able to be powered by local pv panels, Putting them way out is expensive and creates deserts which some might think is a challenge. On the other hand, those who object to "cities" might consider the original root word of "civilization".
Hah, aside from the situational errors, you are just plain wrong on this and it is trivial for you to have done better.
Go
OET Bulletin Number 73 (Nov 23, 2010) bar_header.gif spacer
*
The ILLR Computer Program for Predicting Digital Television Signal Strengths at Individual Locations
(2010)
*
This bulletin publishes the detailed definition on the model for making point-to-point predictions of the intensity of digital television (DTV) signals. This model was adopted by the Commission as prescribed under the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA).
*
Download:
o oet73.pdf (Adobe® Portable Document Format)
Return to Top
OET Bulletin Number 72 (July 2, 2002)
*
The ILLR Computer Program
*
This bulletin provides a detailed definition of the Independent Location Longley-Rice (ILLR) computer program established in Section 73.683(d) of the FCC rules as the means of predicting the broadcast television field strength received at individual locations. The Commission developed the ILLR Computer Program following the directions of Congress in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA). The program computes the predicted signal strength of analog television (TV) stations as received over-the-air at individual viewing locations. Individual locations where a network TV signal is below a certain signal strength level are eligible to receive the network broadcast as subscribers of satellite TV services. The program is used by Satellite TV service providers to determine whether particular TV network signals may be included in the package of channels delivered to individual subscribers. To facilitate use of the program by others, this bulletin provides details for installing the program on other computers.
*
Download:
o oet72.pdf (209 Kb) (Adobe® Portable Document Format)
Return to Top
OET Bulletin Number 71 (April 12, 2000)
*
Guidelines for Testing and Verifying the Accuracy of E911 Location Systems
*
This bulletin clarifies the application of the FCC's wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) rules. Those rules establish a program to ensure that when a wireless telephone caller dials 911, the 911 call center will know the caller's geographical location to help speed the dispatch of help to the scene of the emergency. The FCC's rules require that wireless carriers meet specific accuracy and reliability standards in reporting the location of 911 calls. This bulletin clarifies how the performance of location systems and equipment may be tested and verified for compliance with the accuracy rules.
*
Slashdot Mirror
Glancing at your response., I do not immediate see anything much for me to disagree about therein, in the response you made. Does that puzzle you? But this particular thread set is about government investing in what might be a "profit" making enterprise, some sort of green thing. Let us see if I can help you out here. You do understand that nothing anyone can say about anything is "True"? So there is going to be an aspect of what you say that is "not True". One way to get at *policy* to be derived from your statements is to look at the "corner cases".; Do you understand "corner case". Nice computer nerd term. I am pointing out a way in which your position is false, in which it breaks down, in which it does not apply.
Now, if you come of the rant, drop the silly free market ideology, government is Evil, etc, we might get to think deeply about why we are in major nation-threatening disaster mode and what to do about it, which will be a policy statement... Leaving aside all the theory and all the factoids and all the polemics: which of these two alternatives do you in your gut choose: government building infrastructure or government bailing out speculative "investments"? Now I am a little more complicated than to say "infrastructure" as it is understood generally is exactly what we need, but I really think I have asked a useful question of *you*. And in a deep way, these alternatives cannot both be chosen, in a way deeper than tax/spend/balanced budget/accounting arguments.
Oh my. So silly. As I noted, if the wealth of a world is suitably increased by the investment of paper currency freshly printed, then the printing does not cause inflation. Your silliness stems in part from the idea that money as you are thinking of it is real. And the core argument of the thread was simply that government investments have poor accounting ROI.
Your idea of microsociety behavior as meaniful on this point is also silly, but predictable. For you, a solitary atom is the same as a big cloud of neutral hydrogen, except for a scalar attribute.
Oh my again. You are quite valuable to me. I had an interesting insight. The insight is not for me to be repeated, but it started with the correlation between your stuff and "The parable of the bees". Do you know this text and the legal case over it? If not, you might google around and be amused.
"free market"is sort of a funny idea. You need to get over adam smith, hmm, and real real quick. But nicely done polemics. With respect to governments investing, try this.
US government (feds) can print money. If they invest that money in (to keep it simple for you) infrastructure, then that supports the general welfare (remember that up in the unamendable preamble of the constitution) which, as intended, gives everyone a better shot at the pursuit of happiness, which often means some possibly greedy, but quite useful, industrial capitialist, does some good for himself and others, if the government keeps him in line. The really hard part for you to understand is that if the investment produces more wealth than the investment, even though the monetary ROI sucks because of present-value considerations, then this is a win.
As an example, look at the ROI on the Eire canal. But see also that we are still get wealth of a simple kind from it. But people like you really hate Hamilton, really for building the canals.
default projections are based on a refusal to prioritize... Let us say you want to obey the 14th amendment. Not a problem. Let us say you wanted real bad to bail out the speculators. Then there is a problem.
Pooh, I checked my inbox for the slugs to cite, but could not find them. here is my memory.
14th amendment says we *will* pay for some things. Figure that is debt service, social security, medicare, congressional and other government pensions :-), and DOD. Does not require us to keep things going otherwise. Current receipts will do the absolute requirements just fine.
The slugs had various people running the particular numbers. As opposed to, well, however you want to characterize what the Treasury secretary says.
"not a problem" is sort of as applied to the "possible", where "possible" ultimately relates to laws, sometimes of physics. :-)
sorry for the flame. whoosh!
Well, maybe not for the flame, but for the "if you are human" phrasing. Aside from flaky, it is not useful in this context, which is about the same thing.
Have a great day.
Thank you for your reply. Let me do a bit of nominalism. My use of the word "productive" is as a physical economy word and thus excludes, hmm, casio revenues, and .. casino economy revenues. I sort of imagine the projections you reference are using the current definitions of GDP and thus include how much profit the investment banks make off of whatever is the current bubble creation program.
work for prc not necessarily work for us and visa versa
"not necessarily" is pretty much a law of the universe. But historically, a lot of countries have had success paying close attention to the policies we used in the early days. And the Chinese still look at us and do some emulation. For instance, the leadership of the chinese man on the moon programs figures apollo gave us tech leadership of the world for 20 years, per some quotes I do not trust. No one is going to claim that apollo did not have a giant economic payoff. We cannot even manage to keep processing economically critical data from existing space assets.
I figure you want to do a nice detailed axiom based scalar analysis. Screw that. If you are actually human, try for some cartesian and recognize that we are going though policy driven negative phase shifts and your axiom set went out the window, probably about 2000, but anyone actually paying attention and sane knew it was gone in 2007. But that probably was not you.
Hah, and you want to evaluate "policy" in terms of "context". The implication of my above remarks are that "context" is changing a lot faster than your evaluation capability.
Here is my evaluation: the US will not tolerate dictatorship.
Consider:
I claim the following are the congress critters operating assumptions:
1) we want to put a lot of money into stuff that is *against* the general welfare
2) we do not want to put money into stuff that "improves* the general welfare
Now consider a possible proxy for general welfare:
increase the productive part of the economy by say 2% a year instead of negative percents
Oops, if done, no more worries about the trust fund running out of money anytime soon
On this site, we could probably come up today with 20 good ways to do 2% increases
Talk to the Chinese, today, and among the things they are actively doing there, hey, 20 things to do 2% increases
talk to DC types, the priorities are, well, we already covered that in general and we all kind of know anyway. Do we really need to be specific?
here is a url you might look at: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insolvency
just a definition of insolvency
my thought here is that lots of people are avoiding using accurate words, if the words invoke a real context. You might look at this bit of nominalism and see where it applies around you.
Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is silly. Instead of looking at budgeting numbers as scalar and instantaneous, look at just some recent patterns where "slashing" makes the deficit *worse*. California is the first data set to come to mind. Greece is in the headlines today. Or the same take, from a different angle, look how well bailing out speculators has worked for us. Inside people's heads is the idea that interesting things like the universe and all its parts are composed of hmm, scalars, continuous functions, predictable by statistical methods, mechanical, etc. Do you really want to claim that way our species made its living over the past 4 million years (yah, I know) is predictable. If not, then you might see that the way the world makes its living today may not be easily improved by a bean counter. But from bean counters, we get "slash" as a way to make things better.
Maybe the idea of melting pot had to do with ideas, rather than geography. The colonies and the early United States had some ideas that simply were not allowed to be even talked about elsewhere. In the 1820's, maybe 20 million came in, and in a generation, the kids had bought in to these ideas and were willing to die for them. Now consider last century's european history with immigrants. There *is* a difference. Let us label the difference "melting pot". Alas, it is then one of those words, like "general welfare", that are immaterial, and thus, for you, I expect do not exist.
My numbers are a little off, but close enough for having being pulled out of half century old memory
Here is something from wikipedia
Immigration 1790 to 1849
The numbers who came during the first three decades of this era were relatively small. That changed, however, by the 1820s. This period ushered in the first era of mass migration. From that decade through the 1880s, about 15 million immigrants made their way to the United States, many choosing agriculture in the Midwest and Northeast, while others flocked to cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore.
Factors in both Europe and the United States shaped this transition. The end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe liberated young men from military service back home at the same time that industrialization and agricultural consolidation in England, Scandinavia, and much of central Europe transformed local economies and created a class of young people who could not earn a living in the new order. Demand for immigrant labor shot up with two major developments: the settlement of the American Midwest after the inauguration of the Erie Canal in 1825 and the related rise of the port of New York, and the first stirrings of industrial development in the United States, particularly in textile production, centered in New England.
Immigrants tended to cluster by group in particular neighborhoods, cities, and regions. The American Midwest, as it emerged in the middle of the 19th century as one of the world’s most fertile agricultural regions, became home to tight-knit, relatively homogeneous communities of immigrants from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Bohemia, and various regions of what in 1871 would become Germany.
This era saw the first large-scale arrival of Catholic immigrants to the largely Protestant United States, and these primarily Irish women and men inspired the nation’s first serious bout of nativism, which combined an antipathy to immigrants in general with a fear of Catholicism and an aversion to the Irish. Particularly in the decades just before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), this nativism spawned a powerful political movement and even a political party, the Know Nothings, which made anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism central to its political agenda. This period also witnessed the arrival of small numbers of Chinese men to the American West. Native-born Americans reacted intensely and negatively to their arrival, leading to the passage of the only piece of U.S. immigration legislation that specifically named a group as the focus of restrictive policy, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. In the early decades of the U.S. government, no official records were kept and immigration is estimated to have averaged only about 6000 people a year. During the time, wars in Europe and America severely limited travel and immigration; these started in 1789 with the French Revolution, and were followed by the Napoleonic Wars from 1792 to 1814, as well as America's War of 1812 (1812–1814) with Britain. While the fighting generally restricted immigration, it also prompted some, including French refugees from the Haitian slave revolt. By 1808 also, Congress had banned the importation of slaves, slowing that trans-Atlantic human trafficking to a trickle.
Based on available records, immigration totaled 8,385 in 1820, with immigration totals gradually increasing to 23,322 by the year 1830; for the 1820s decade immigration more than
Hah, okay I see the marvin reference now. I was looking at http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2010/11/more-plutonium.html and feeling unhappy. Your humor works better than flaming.
silly bunny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238
this emits alpha particles. hard to make something explosive I figure. Do you figure at all? Probably much too much.
Here is a little background of general interest. http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=598732652
Figure we are out of the 238 and I suppose the way things are, we might never have any more. Another way to shut down the space program.? But the slug is from a year ago. So, you tell me, is the supply situation any better? If not, maybe you should look around for some patterns to get a handle on this sort of thing.
In passing, I could use an electric, even very small, with even only a 10 kilometer range. Mostly, I do not go far or need to go fast. And I did a back of the envelope and the problems at that trivial level seem to be all government and anti-competitive stuff, if there is a difference. The actual price should in fact be rather nominal for an entire car at that range.
One of the problems is that a minimal and even legal auto body is straightforward and should be cheap, you pretty much cannot buy one new and off the shelf from any one who has the mass production capability. But .. I am no expert.
max
I have run across this a few times. Here is something cute: the last time was some recent larouche organization research articles on multiple related phenomena. I guess you could search for "extended sensorium" there. If you are enough of a cartesian, you will have a lot of fun playing there.
Did you know that all the way back to Ben Franklin people have puzzled over audio sensations around Aurora. But we can at this point pretty much guarantee there are no air waves involved. But we can guarantee that the sounds are real, for some value of real.
Hah, I felt obliged to put in a link and found one I need to read. Try this:
www.larouchepac.com/files/SkyShields-ElectricMagneticSense_0.pdf
On stealing high speed train tech... I figure I read that story some time ago. My recollection is the chinese had a unifed negotiation team whipsawing the different western vendors against each other. No stealing, just real clever hard ball. We are not even talkng MPAA pirating here. So what exactly is the criticism that generates "stealing".
Thanks for your answer. I am not sure that citing
generic economic historians is really meaniful, but your argument is rather pleasing in some ways. I do have the following sort of puzzle. Post world war II we went rapidly from a one wage earner family to a very strong necessity for two wage earner families. So I might think we should have gotten somewhat ahead of the game from the bigger workforce., particularly given that in a sense the population was fixed. Perhaps you might comment.
Generally, the quants, and everyone else, somehow thinks there is a stable relationship between fixed axiom systems and whatever they are trying to deal with. There are some problems with that. :-) I suppose particularly with time frame specifications, but if you try that approach and pay attention, things get extremely funny, in several senses, including humor.
for some reason I think here of Malthus. Of course, there are a lot of really true ways to realize he is full of it. Except, if we managed to be really stupid for 40 or 50 years, sort of like Malthus, then .. well, we would be looking at an acute maltusian crisis, not our present obvious and clear glorious future for our kids and so on. :-)
I cannot imagine what would cause such stupidity however, so my musing are pointless.
Since we want to quote einstein a bit, let me do a little concept web. This article as best I can see started out on stuff like Genesis I vs Big Bang. This sort of confined controversy is going to,look a lot difference than the "truth of the existence of the electron", faith, science, religion, whatever. I will upset people and say they both Gensis I and Big Bang "creation myths". So I like the Navaho creation myth best, maybe then Genesis I, and lastly Big Bang. Now I wish to defend Genisis I. Hmm, 4k years ago, Genesis I was high end science! By imposing a progressing on the creation, they got pretty close to the "progressing" of the cosmos and evolution. They also got in some teleology. Now Big Bang does not like teleology or progress concepts. Pretty much Science says we do not see a conscious purposer around on that scale of power. And the progress is pretty much accidental, unless we get into some interesting non-equalibrium/thermodynamics/chaos stuff and we are not quite sure what is possible to know there yet. Oh, Big Bang does have oddities like inflation and uncaused causes.
I am sort of a monist pantheisis and the Navaho figure the world is made of wind and I am an attributive sort. And the wind is always changing and it is invisible and I like lots of changing, and I am not quite sure how all that changing happens, so invisible stuff is good. :-)
Big Bang is going to look pretty silly to a monist because it has all this silly reductionism so the universe is just a machine. Now we get to Einstein. A reporter asked him what would be the next big fundamental proof in scince. He answered "A proof that the universe was friendly" Consider: does a machine has a Being such that the machine is "friendly". If the universe has such a Being, is it a machine?
But on proof of Big Bang, there is a straight forward proof method. Get the creation of new universes embedded into the planet's economy! Weird you out? What is the best demo of the truth of General Relativity.? Try that we use it to put spacecraft out to Jupiter and everything works out. (I do note the magic of coming up with simply an idea and over 70 years it gets more and more confirmation every time a new tool comes along. Of course, in a mechanical universe, this is an impossibility.)
Enjoy. Do not get too serious. Instead of polemics, joy at a universe of such grace and richness, (Einstein: finite but unbounded) that is just going to go on getting richer. Oops, I pissed on thermodynamics. :-) Lets all give Euler a golden shower!
. ..
I apologize for irritating.
Numbers. Numbers are not science, but I can hope that if there are some numbers, some science has been around.
EROI. Yah, I think EROI is real interesting. The numbers I see show over an *order of magnitude* difference in EROI on different techs. And the really great thing is that this difference does not exist as far as public discourse is concerned. Note that in spite of all our going back and forth, you save never been willing to state what besides the actual panel EROI needs to be considered. You have been willing to state food for teachers of builders of ships for transporting materials need not be considered. Yet this sort of issue is cited to as the reason there is no reliable EROI on solar electricity.
Quoting: I don't see any need to rush into solar, the hope for it is that costs reach the point where people install it because it quickly saves them money, not that society mandates it and accidentally throws away a bunch of energy. As long as there isn't too much subsidization, solar panels that cheap should have a decent EROI.
I guess I am too subtle: Hey, cheap solar panels does not equal high EROI. Let's see. I have talked about what other direct objects have to be included. I have talked about all the indirect objects that might be reasonably included, picking one that was very indirect to illustrate the extent of the issue. I have talked about the difference between straight-forward physical things like kw-h and constructs like the USD. I have alluded to issues between reductionism and say monism. I have proposed conspiracy theories. I have alluded to modeling issues. And your best response is sort of "hey, my neighbor might think it saves him some cash flow". You know, the reason I did the challenge was the idea that you might actually say something that *meant* something, such that it could be assigned a true/false value. As I say, no one really cares on these sort of topics, but I get some fun out of such stuff.
Try this. Try to say what direct objects should be included in analyzing your neighbors solar electricity system EROI. This is certainly directly relevant to "city border issues", where we did start out.
My, thank for the response. As a scalar, an EROI of 1.0 is breakeven. You can be more qualitative than "sufficently high*.
I see some problems here.
1) I start out with the claim that running a city off of pv panels is not physically sane. You end up talking about how a pv panel install at your home might save you *money*. The scaling is so different as to make your argument silly and somehow you are waving your hands and making *money* a physical, but backing out at the last minute, thus showing some sense. I could manage to talk about money as a physical, but I doubt you can.
2) Here is somethiing you did in fact say:
(The food consumption inputs of the people that taught the kid are going to be so small when you distribute them over all the cargo and ships and kids that you end up with an exercise in completeness, not interesting information.
Now if you can demo that well enough, you are dealing in solving one of the *big* problems, thus the Nobel. But somehow you do not seem to have said it.
And in passing, cost of some electricity locally is say 3 cents a kw. Green energy locally is being subsidized at a level ,of say 50 cents a kilowatt. I figure everyone around slashdot has a sense of this. So your last paragraph is like starting an argument out with "if the moon is made of green cheese..." Tell me again why I should be interested?
What we are saying here is pointless. You are trying to pretend to a rationality you do not show and no one really cares about. If you were good at playing rational, we could enjoy ourselves together, and not worry about whether anyone else cared. You like to shift the focus around and that can in fact be useful, but everytime you shift, the conceptual structure gets less sophisticated. kind of interesting. But I will end with a challenge: give me some actual EROI numbers on your proposed home pv system. Let us call it an off-grid system with an average load of 5kw, hmm, Oregon, Salem, ground mounted. Do a good job and you can push it at journals, maybe successfully even without a union card.
I think there is a nominalism problem here. EROI is not a dollars thing. It compares the energy inputs *in* to the energy produced *out*. So, you might think pv panels are great, and in fact for wind, the EROI in a narrow sense is quite good. But here in Oregon the big wind farms are all on the other side of the mountains from the population. So we get to spend about 700 million on new transmission lines. The energy inputs for transmission line construction are going to be *big* and the energy output will in fact be negative. So I hypothesis that the typical greenie academic will not do decent EROI calculations (or at least publish them).
As far as interesting vs completeness, you have a point, but if it is proposed to defend not including battery, inverter, and transmission lines in the EROI calculations, then we have some stinkiness going on. As far as the point directly, the whole generally acknowledged lack of a decent science basis for doing EROI is in fact the question of how far down the line we need to go to get good numbers. Now if you can actually defend your statement rigorously, then you have some science going on and if you have the right union cards, you should do some journal publications.
More broadly, if you are able to show that medium scale economic effects are negligible (even in a non-steady state environment) , then you have a nice Nobel coming your way. Hah, while you are it, show NP=P.
The idea about self-sufficency , aside from responding to some fine greenie anarachist inclinations, is that if you have to do a lot of long-distance transmission costs, the numbers on solar go way south. As far as EROI, your comment illustrates the flakiness of the approaches used. The EROI on the panels themselves might be pretty good. Now, do you chose to include in your energy inputs battery, inverter, and transmission line construction costs? And try this. Suppose you go down to Starbucks and get a latte. You are plugging into a world-wide economic network to gen up that cup of coffee . The energy inputs involved should properly include, IMO, the food production energy inputs of the teachers who taught the kid that grew up to build the ship that carried the coffee to the United States. Not only is this conceptual heresy to many people, it is is hard to do the math in the usual way. So, if you want to speak to EROI, do you really want to talk just about solar panel manufacturing cost?
And if you are interested in nuclear, there does not seem to be any claim that nukes do not have a positive EROI. Now change the regulatory environment so that they get built in 18 months right up next to the cities and on an assembly line basis, all? the numbers are going to be rosy. It is fun to look at, but you need to start with the idea that people mostly really cannot tolerate many kinds of fun!
The guy screwed the argument up. Try this: the sunlight falling on a city will generate less energy than that needed by the city to operate. In more detail, factories take up a lot of energy as compared to their area. So costs end up going way up and given the relatively diffuse nature of the energy source, you really do need magic tech to win. But here is the real deal. Try to figure out the "Energy Return on Investment" (EROI) on all that solar panel and batteries and transmission lines! I casually tried to figure it out a while ago. You might think there could be a 2 or 3 times return according to a meta-study. But the standard deviation is about that magnitude! There is no real science going on here and there are some hints that the most reliable results are such that the authors refuse to publish. So, you have a significant chance that you are really looking at yet another battery technology, not energy generation.
And then, when you look at "progress", one of the big drivers (playing out over billions of years) has been *increased* energy density. So I am all in favor of solar .... out near the orbit of mercury!
Just glancing here. Is the "major dose of radiation" you are referencing that ankle level beta emitter exposure a couple of workers got from wading in radioactive water without decent boots? Are you then okay with comparing it to that "major does of radiation" you get when you sunburn on the beach?
Some perspective is useful here. How many people in Japan have died from civilian nuclear power radiation exposure beginning-of-time-to-now vs from just-about-anything-else? Candidly, I do not see why anyone serious would consider either of our points *interesting*.
But here is a sort of oddity on "liquidators". I do not have a cite and I do not know anything about how the soviets did it, but I recall there have been in the US a cadre of workers who specialized in work in "hot" environments. Given the tight US occupational safety rules, they might have
worked in the "hot" environment for but seconds per month, but they got paid full-time wages.
Now nothing you or I have said here has any significance, but the last item is at least a bit amusing. And I bet a lot of slashdotters would like that sort of job, even without any pushy economic stressors. :-)
Hah, there is a size issue. If you really really want your electricity from pv panels, you cannot tolerate much population density and have much electricity at the same time. The typical city does not have enough area to be able to be powered by local pv panels, Putting them way out is expensive and creates deserts which some might think is a challenge. On the other hand, those who object to "cities" might consider the original root word of "civilization".
Hah, aside from the situational errors, you are just plain wrong on this and it is trivial for you to have done better.
Go
OET Bulletin Number 73 (Nov 23, 2010) bar_header.gif
spacer
*
The ILLR Computer Program for Predicting Digital Television Signal Strengths at Individual Locations
(2010)
*
This bulletin publishes the detailed definition on the model for making point-to-point predictions of the intensity of digital television (DTV) signals. This model was adopted by the Commission as prescribed under the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA).
*
Download:
o oet73.pdf (Adobe® Portable Document Format)
Return to Top
OET Bulletin Number 72 (July 2, 2002)
*
The ILLR Computer Program
*
This bulletin provides a detailed definition of the Independent Location Longley-Rice (ILLR) computer program established in Section 73.683(d) of the FCC rules as the means of predicting the broadcast television field strength received at individual locations. The Commission developed the ILLR Computer Program following the directions of Congress in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA). The program computes the predicted signal strength of analog television (TV) stations as received over-the-air at individual viewing locations. Individual locations where a network TV signal is below a certain signal strength level are eligible to receive the network broadcast as subscribers of satellite TV services. The program is used by Satellite TV service providers to determine whether particular TV network signals may be included in the package of channels delivered to individual subscribers. To facilitate use of the program by others, this bulletin provides details for installing the program on other computers.
*
Download:
o oet72.pdf (209 Kb) (Adobe® Portable Document Format)
Return to Top
OET Bulletin Number 71 (April 12, 2000)
*
Guidelines for Testing and Verifying the Accuracy of E911 Location Systems
*
This bulletin clarifies the application of the FCC's wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) rules. Those rules establish a program to ensure that when a wireless telephone caller dials 911, the 911 call center will know the caller's geographical location to help speed the dispatch of help to the scene of the emergency. The FCC's rules require that wireless carriers meet specific accuracy and reliability standards in reporting the location of 911 calls. This bulletin clarifies how the performance of location systems and equipment may be tested and verified for compliance with the accuracy rules.
*
Download:
o
oet71.doc (116 Kb) (Microsoft Word 97)
o
oet71.pdf (51 Kb) (Adobe® Portable Document Format)
Return to Top
OET Bulletin No. 70 (July 1997)