In Bush's speech today http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=53 5&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
He discussed the Kyoto Treaty.
". . . We care about the climate. Many allies are upset with the United States for refusing to approve the Kyoto climate treaty. "They thought the treaty made sense," Bush said. "I didn't." He noted that the Senate had voted 95-0 against the treaty. Yet, Bush said there were other ways to deal with the problem of global warming and that he would talk with allies about new technologies to deal with the issue. . . . "
Perhaps I should say "admirable start". I think of good treaties as give and take with both parties giving up something and sharing burdens equally. I do not think Kyoto meets that criteria. Bad in the sense of unfair. Good in the sense that we need to do something and anything, Kyoto included, is better than nothing.
I'm not disagreeing with you on these things. The USA can and needs to do a better job on energy efficiency. And to be direct, I am horrified by the push towards bigger and bigger SUVs. I also think we could do much better on public transit, I live in Chicago which actually has an extensive train system for commuting. We can do better and if we had a better treaty to sign on to, I think we would sign on. McCain is making efforts to homegrow many of these ideas. But the USA won't be forced into Kyoto.
Actually, in the initial stages of this negotiation, the US was an active partner. I spoke to several delegates from the first Bush administration and even some holdovers from the Reagan years. Unfortunately, the European delagtes simply outvoted them and wouldn't be reasoned with. For certain delegations it was, "I won't hurt you, you don't hurt me, we'll hurt those guys behind the tree." Unfortunately, it was the Americans behind the tree and by not negotiating with them in a real way, certain European delegations created a treaty which the US would never sign on to. The US would sign a reasonable treaty, this one is not that.
It'd be funny if I didn't assist with the scientific analysis of the Kyoto Treaty. Guess what the analysis says, "Kyoto is a bad treaty." I was expelled from Greenpeace International on political grounds.
The UK isn't complaining because of the death of the UK coal and steel industries since 1990 has made your meeting of Kyoto fairly trivial compared to the level of pain you'd require of the USA. If you used a fairer metric like, 1980 then we'd be talking.
Sorry Dave, but you have the closed mind. I was a member of Greenpeace until two years ago. The Kyoto targets are the joke. The agricultural subsidies plan is of the same scope as Kyoto. Let me know when you are accepting that deal.
The problem with the Kyoto treaty is not just the economic devastation it would entail in the USA, it is the blatant unfairness in it (although diplomacy requires the Bush admin never to mention that.) The 1990 date was chosen by Europeans not as a fair reference but because it was an easy target for them. Since 1990 the Soviet Union has dissolved and with it an enormous, archaic (heavily polluting) industrial base. Germany almost makes it's quota by removing all the Trabants alone. So, as a US citizen and speaking for our government let me propose a deal. Agricultural subsidies are also world problem and both Europe and the USA must take action. So I propose this deal, you slash your subsidies to zero and we'll do nothing and then the USA will sign the Kyoto Treaty (they are both equally fair.)
Changing the geometry of the seismic event would have affected the tsunami's shape and directionality. There still would have been an effect in the direction of the main affected region however. The India plate has been taking a dive for some time however.
The India tectonic plate, one of the most mobile in recent geologic time, slipped underneath the southeast asia one causing a major uplifting, which caused the tsunami. A relatively unusual geologic cause of a tsunami. Original reports where that some areas fell by 2000 ft, which would be quite remarkable and a bit of an exageration.
Then you gotta get them back. fI/Not necessarily. I have seen proposals for one way manned Mars missions. Send supplies ahead of time via the cost-efficient route, and then the people the quick way. Once they get there, they stay.
I am certain that there would be a sufficient number of qualified volunteers to pull it off./fI
What smokers and other terminally ill people? Sorry, I don't think one way missions, without massive qualifying conditions (planet in imminent danger), are EVER ethical.
Congratulations, you are now officially off my Christmas card list. I send them only to people who can read with comprehension and don't alter my statements when summarizing.
Not if the ruler was a tube. I happen to have seen the prototype for the machine which 'builds' the space station's booms. Three sheets of metal are arranged in a triangular tube, with two bracing streams rotating about on the inside between the three faces. None of the sheets or streams are wider than a human hair and a linear foot of it is lighter than a linear foot of #6 guage copper wire.
READ this line carefully:
If it is constructed properly, slender members can be lighter than equivalent lengths of binding wires.
Ever try to crush a triangular beam? Use your head next time!!
". . . The capacity of a tension member is limited by the net area of the cross section. On the other hand, compression member capacity is typically governed by the shape of the cross section, not the cross sectional area . .."
I agree but since the members are in space (and thus their within structure mass is irrelevant) the building up of a cross section area requires as much additional mass as adding to to the shape of the cross section. Thus this just confirms my original point . ..
" . . . virtually any connection between two objects will be of virtually identical thickness/mass. . . "
Rigid construction beams in space can be made structurally sound from a width of metal much more typical for a width of foil on Earth. But tethers in space have to maintain the cross section (and thus mass) of those on Earth. That is, ropes or wires which suffer tension in space have to be of the same size as on Earth. Rigid beams holding things apart in space, as long as they are appropriately constructed, can be as thin as that which wraps your stick of JuicyFruit.
The shuttle had a mission: drive the cost of getting to Low Earth Orbit down by reusing the vehicle. To be a "space truck". At that, it failed miserably.
It failed because it actually had two missions: a) provide a vehicle for moving people to LEO b) provide a "space truck" for hauling cargo to LEO. The two are frequently at odds and because both were required, the cost never came down.
The new plans seperate these missions to a great degree thus freeing both from concerns over the other. If anything could actually lower the cost of LEO missions, this is it.
An example of crossed concerns: safety. On a cargo hauling mission with no people aboard, safety comes down to not killing people on the ground and not killing people already in space. If one payload blows up, thats a loss, but hardly a devastating one. On a manned mission, you have to keep the crew alive.
Your not using hemp ropes, your using pieces of metal. To make a rigid piece of metal, in space, requires no more mass than to make a wire. The resistance to compression and resistance to stretching are virtually identical for metallic solids in space.
Sure, but any rigid truss arrangement that can transfer the thrust generated by the sail in compression or bending loads will still be far heavier than a set of cables that can handle the same load in tension.
I disagree. Since the objects are in space, virtually any connection between two objects will be of virtually identical thickness/mass. Put the solar sail as the whole stern of the ship and you have a most efficient arrangement. Having the ship behind the sail will mean that the ship's profile will be interrupting and dispersing a portion of the beamed microwaves. Naturally, this can be minimized, like a reflector telescope. I still wouldn't want to ride in a ship being hit by industrial strength microwave radiation. You could be shielded, but why add risk to already risky space travel?
Slashdot Mirror
Naked political opposition is no reason to moderate downward.
Of course, if you had the courage to not post this anonymously, it might be considered more legitimate.
In Bush's speech today http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=53 5&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
He discussed the Kyoto Treaty.
". . . We care about the climate. Many allies are upset with the United States for refusing to approve the Kyoto climate treaty. "They thought the treaty made sense," Bush said. "I didn't." He noted that the Senate had voted 95-0 against the treaty. Yet, Bush said there were other ways to deal with the problem of global warming and that he would talk with allies about new technologies to deal with the issue. . . . "
Perhaps I should say "admirable start". I think of good treaties as give and take with both parties giving up something and sharing burdens equally. I do not think Kyoto meets that criteria. Bad in the sense of unfair. Good in the sense that we need to do something and anything, Kyoto included, is better than nothing.
I'm not disagreeing with you on these things. The USA can and needs to do a better job on energy efficiency. And to be direct, I am horrified by the push towards bigger and bigger SUVs. I also think we could do much better on public transit, I live in Chicago which actually has an extensive train system for commuting. We can do better and if we had a better treaty to sign on to, I think we would sign on. McCain is making efforts to homegrow many of these ideas. But the USA won't be forced into Kyoto.
Actually, in the initial stages of this negotiation, the US was an active partner. I spoke to several delegates from the first Bush administration and even some holdovers from the Reagan years. Unfortunately, the European delagtes simply outvoted them and wouldn't be reasoned with. For certain delegations it was, "I won't hurt you, you don't hurt me, we'll hurt those guys behind the tree." Unfortunately, it was the Americans behind the tree and by not negotiating with them in a real way, certain European delegations created a treaty which the US would never sign on to. The US would sign a reasonable treaty, this one is not that.
"Mostly harmless."
"42"
It'd be funny if I didn't assist with the scientific analysis of the Kyoto Treaty. Guess what the analysis says, "Kyoto is a bad treaty." I was expelled from Greenpeace International on political grounds.
The UK isn't complaining because of the death of the UK coal and steel industries since 1990 has made your meeting of Kyoto fairly trivial compared to the level of pain you'd require of the USA. If you used a fairer metric like, 1980 then we'd be talking.
Sorry Dave, but you have the closed mind. I was a member of Greenpeace until two years ago. The Kyoto targets are the joke. The agricultural subsidies plan is of the same scope as Kyoto. Let me know when you are accepting that deal.
The problem with the Kyoto treaty is not just the economic devastation it would entail in the USA, it is the blatant unfairness in it (although diplomacy requires the Bush admin never to mention that.) The 1990 date was chosen by Europeans not as a fair reference but because it was an easy target for them. Since 1990 the Soviet Union has dissolved and with it an enormous, archaic (heavily polluting) industrial base. Germany almost makes it's quota by removing all the Trabants alone.
So, as a US citizen and speaking for our government let me propose a deal. Agricultural subsidies are also world problem and both Europe and the USA must take action. So I propose this deal, you slash your subsidies to zero and we'll do nothing and then the USA will sign the Kyoto Treaty (they are both equally fair.)
Not to mention the Himalayas!!!
Changing the geometry of the seismic event would have affected the tsunami's shape and directionality. There still would have been an effect in the direction of the main affected region however. The India plate has been taking a dive for some time however.
. . . and a substantial reduction in cancerous tumor formation in rats . .
. . . what is keeping the little buggers alive.
The India tectonic plate, one of the most mobile in recent geologic time, slipped underneath the southeast asia one causing a major uplifting, which caused the tsunami. A relatively unusual geologic cause of a tsunami. Original reports where that some areas fell by 2000 ft, which would be quite remarkable and a bit of an exageration.
I invite all to read my thoughts on this discussion as posted in my journal.
to take a chip you legally bought out the door?
I see this as a way to protect against theft, as in bringing illegal duplicate chips in the door.
Then you gotta get them back.
fI/Not necessarily. I have seen proposals for one way manned Mars missions. Send supplies ahead of time via the cost-efficient route, and then the people the quick way. Once they get there, they stay.
I am certain that there would be a sufficient number of qualified volunteers to pull it off./fI
What smokers and other terminally ill people? Sorry, I don't think one way missions, without massive qualifying conditions (planet in imminent danger), are EVER ethical.
If God wanted us to utilize the metric system, then Jesus would have had ten apostles!!
One way only!!! I'd love to get to Mars, but there is no free launch!!!
Congratulations, you are now officially off my Christmas card list. I send them only to people who can read with comprehension and don't alter my statements when summarizing.
Not if the ruler was a tube. I happen to have seen the prototype for the machine which 'builds' the space station's booms. Three sheets of metal are arranged in a triangular tube, with two bracing streams rotating about on the inside between the three faces. None of the sheets or streams are wider than a human hair and a linear foot of it is lighter than a linear foot of #6 guage copper wire.
READ this line carefully:
If it is constructed properly, slender members can be lighter than equivalent lengths of binding wires.
Ever try to crush a triangular beam? Use your head next time!!
". . . The capacity of a tension member is limited by the net area of the cross section. On the other hand, compression member capacity is typically governed by the shape of the cross section, not the cross sectional area . .
I agree but since the members are in space (and thus their within structure mass is irrelevant) the building up of a cross section area requires as much additional mass as adding to to the shape of the cross section. Thus this just confirms my original point . .
" . . . virtually any connection between two objects will be of virtually identical thickness/mass. . . "
Rigid construction beams in space can be made structurally sound from a width of metal much more typical for a width of foil on Earth. But tethers in space have to maintain the cross section (and thus mass) of those on Earth. That is, ropes or wires which suffer tension in space have to be of the same size as on Earth. Rigid beams holding things apart in space, as long as they are appropriately constructed, can be as thin as that which wraps your stick of JuicyFruit.
The shuttle had a mission: drive the cost of getting to Low Earth Orbit down by reusing the vehicle. To be a "space truck". At that, it failed miserably.
It failed because it actually had two missions: a) provide a vehicle for moving people to LEO b) provide a "space truck" for hauling cargo to LEO. The two are frequently at odds and because both were required, the cost never came down.
The new plans seperate these missions to a great degree thus freeing both from concerns over the other. If anything could actually lower the cost of LEO missions, this is it.
An example of crossed concerns: safety. On a cargo hauling mission with no people aboard, safety comes down to not killing people on the ground and not killing people already in space. If one payload blows up, thats a loss, but hardly a devastating one. On a manned mission, you have to keep the crew alive.
Your not using hemp ropes, your using pieces of metal. To make a rigid piece of metal, in space, requires no more mass than to make a wire. The resistance to compression and resistance to stretching are virtually identical for metallic solids in space.
Sure, but any rigid truss arrangement that can transfer the thrust generated by the sail in compression or bending loads will still be far heavier than a set of cables that can handle the same load in tension.
I disagree. Since the objects are in space, virtually any connection between two objects will be of virtually identical thickness/mass. Put the solar sail as the whole stern of the ship and you have a most efficient arrangement. Having the ship behind the sail will mean that the ship's profile will be interrupting and dispersing a portion of the beamed microwaves. Naturally, this can be minimized, like a reflector telescope. I still wouldn't want to ride in a ship being hit by industrial strength microwave radiation. You could be shielded, but why add risk to already risky space travel?