What that shows more about the NASA of old, is that they made choices that were gutsy and capable of killing their crew. The new NASA regularly makes similar choices and it has not always panned out (IOW, the new NASA is not that indifferent from the old NASA). But it also shows that we need to take some chances. I forget who said it, but that we NEED to kill some ppl every so often, or it is a sign that we are not pushing ourselves hard enough. More importantly, we need to NOT be afraid of this. Life is great, but SOME things are worth giving it up for. And pushing into space is one of them.
about it. According to the envion site, we recycle only 4% of our plastic. That is it. And according to other sites, most of that is recycled in China. We even pay them to take it. Now, how useful would a process like Envion be? Well, it would allow us to recycle plastics LOCALLY. Right at the sites where garbage is taken. For example, Waste Management would likely be a prime buyer of these. They will change from PAYING somebody to take the plastics to somebody who turns it into cheap oil. According to the website, it can handle ALL PLASTICS. That makes sorting trivial and CHEAP.Since it just uses simple light to break it down, it means that it can use AE (namely wind and solar) as its energy input stream. And that oil is then able to be used as energy OR plastic feed. So, what is interesting about this? With cost this low, it will likely lead towards payment for plastic similar to what happens with aluminum and copper. It will not be as high, but it will be up there. Basically, THIS could get us to recycle a great deal more plastics than what we currently do. As it is, do you see metal cans on the roadside? RARELY. Why? Because it pays to recycle those. Ppl either save them, or they collect them and recycle them. Offices will likely collect these. And in the waste streams, it will be viable to have ppl sorting out metals, glass, plastics, and paper. I am not certain if glass and paper have have cheap recycling, but with so much of a waste stream being profitably recycled, it will make it possible.
Now, how is that different than the company that you represent? It really is not. You are BOTH using waste streams and creating oil. The big difference is that plastic is already here. It will remain here because there are really no alternatives. OTH, Doty absolutely depends on a waste stream from Coal/Natural Gas. Without pure CO2, then it is too high costs. In addition, doty ignores the high need for water (and purified at that). That will work great in eastern USA/EU, but here in the western USA as well as many parts of the world, that will be at high cost. My guess is that we will see Nukes being used to create that hydrogen, not wind. But the one thing that you seem to miss is that if you take electricity (loss over the power lines), Convert water to hydrogen (loss of efficiency), combine it with CO2, that is then burned in ICE. The overall efficiency of that is staggering. I am guessing that less than 20% (more likely 10%) of the originally generated energy actually arrives to the wheel (loss of energy over the powers + loss of conversion of h2o -> h2/O2 + loss of transportation of h2 + normal loss of oil based/ICE system). It does recycle once what is a waste stream, there by increasing the efficiency of system, as well as helps to reduce dependency on oil, BUT it is still inefficient.
In the end, I suspect that both Envion and Doty will have their place in society.
It IS carbon nuetral. The CO2 input into the gas is from already expelled CO2. They are not using any stored source of CO2 in the process, so they are not introducing CO2 that would not already have been released. That is the scientific definition of carbon nuetral! The energy in the system is entirely from wind. No additional oil or energy is required, nor does it remove from the economy another product that reqwuires more oil. Oh, goody. With that logic, then we should be able to shut down the coal and natural gas input stream and get all the electricity as well as hydrocarbons that we want. The doty process absolutely is NOT carbon neutral. If it was, then you would simply be able to capture it from the air. It depends on Natural gas and Coal being burned and having a relatively pure stream of CO2. What it does is increase the efficiency of the burning of coal/natural gas process. Now, that is not a bad thing. The more so, considering that we sending billions of dollar elsewhere to buy oil in the ground. BUT, to claim that it is carbon neutral is at best a W-level "disingenuous".
Which is why I was suggesting a skimmer, rather than a net. There is a variety of life there. As far as picking up the plankton, I think that it is a given that we are going to pick up a far amount of it if we pick up the plastic. But, I would think that having the plastic sitting there would be more of an issue than skimming some of of the life. In addition, the real question should be how to stop this in the future.
Hmmm. Let see. There are many processes to clean up water. Many of them now involve membranes. They get overused and sometimes minor holes are introduced. That would allow the water to QUIETLY be contaminated. Here is a test that will show whether the sieve is working or not. And you, as well as the person that modded you up, think that a simple test to show if water is clean is stupid. Seriously?
First, this cleaned up oil, would NOT have to be used as energy. It instead could be used input for.... Plastics. Second, we send a SIGNIFICANT amount of recycle plastics back to CHina. The AMAZING thing is that we PAY THEM FOR IT. We are PAYING TO SEND OUR RECYCLABLES TO OTHER NATIONS. WHy? Because landfills are too expensive and re-processing it, up until this, was too expensive.
Third, you have been busy pushing doty, and yet, they have nothing. Let see you get it up and running first. Also, it is absolutely NOT CARBON neutral. In fact, it is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than this process. It is simply making a wasteful process more efficient.
Now, to be honest, if Doty AND envion can make it happen, then things are GREAT. The simple fact is, that oil will continue to go up in price. If we recycle all of our already bought plastics into either energy or input for more plastics (local), AND if we can turn out oil from what is currently considered a pollutant (though it is not), then things are good.
Much of the plastic is decomposing. Any net will ONLY catch large pieces while ignoring the bulk of it. Worse, it will destroy a lot of life. A decent skimmer boat would instead allow, in fact encourage, biologicals (seen as contaminate to the process) to get out of the way.
Of course, we decided to trade our manufacturing base for burger flipping skills over the past 25 years, and now view it as a given that it costs too much to make things here. In reality, there is no rational basis to think that products can't be built in a first world country with first world standards of living. The fact that Germany kicks our ass on this point proves it. Actually, it had nothing to do with trading skills. It has everything to do with several other factors. Probably 2 of the most important was reagan cutting way back on RD and having that continue under W. The second and more important is that we are no longer automated. At one time, America had the highest productivity per laborer. The reason was that we were highly automated. Then we quit automating. Why? Because the republicans allow (in fact, encourage) ILLEGAL LABOR. Now, the dems are backing that strategy, but they do it for the votes. BOTH are destroying our country. The illegals basically lower the costs of goods, so that discourages automation. Problem is, even when paid 1/2 of minimum, they they are still getting paid more than what China, India, Brazil, etc are paid. Germany has stiff laws on illegals. Hard to get jobs there. That is smart. You want to keep pressure on the companies to keep automating.
If America is going to get back into the game of building and manufactuering, we MUST do several things:
We need to have lower priced energy. Most Americans read that as Coal or Natural gas, but that is not the case. China has lower labor costs on their miners (less safety, less pay, etc), has little to no pollution devices, etc. Basically, China, India, Brazil, etc, will ALLWAYS have CHEAPER COAL. Nukes are expensive, BUT they are fairly isolated from the economic costs. Particularly if we will restart the IFR program and develop these (we have 100 year stockpile and that assumes that America is 100% on IFR nukes). The only real way is to RD more on geo-thermal, solar thermal, wave,etc. Any energy that has BASE-LOAD CAPABILITY.
We need to automate more. There should be X-Prizes for this. LOTS OF THEM. And they should be clean automation (not replacing labor with oil/gas energy).
We need to stop illegal labor. They lower the base pay for all. In addition, they send the money out of the nation which means that we do not get a multiplier effect. The important part is that they discourage automation, which increases our productivity.
Finally, the west's new CO2 policy's are HORRIBLE and will actually work against us. What will happen is that nations like China, India, Brazil, Mexico, etc will be approached by GE coal plant production as well oil companies and they will simply move production over to these nations. GE coal is NOT going to quit building coal plants. They will simply offer the pollution devices that were developed on AMerican dime as an incentive to build more plants there. IOW, their prices are going to go down. Instead, the entire west NEED to change these new anti-CO2 bills to cap OUR emissions (as in NO MORE Coal plants, though more efficient ones could replace old ones), AND to TAX ALL GOODS BASED ON CO2 AND POLLUTION from area that it came from. If we do that, then it put pressure on ALL MANUFACTUERS TO DO THE RIGHT THING. There will be NO MORE CHEATING by trading pollution for lower priced goods.
Actually, there are many impurities in various plastics. PVC comes to mind. You really would rather not burn the chlorine (though it might be recycled for other items). There are others in there as well.
I doubt that such a ship would be economical, BUT, a different approach would be to build small robotic solar powered skimmers (say 12'/4 meters or so). They could pick up the plastics (which is generally not that large) and then bring it back to a main ship. That main ship could then simply take from the skimmers and at least condense it down.
At this time, America buys overpriced products from overseas, watches them break in no time, then in a fit of environmentalism, we recycle it. Where does it go? Back to china for cheap cheap input back into vastly overpriced products.
Now, we are talking about converting this plastic to cheap fuel. Sounds like a winner to me. My only question is, there tend to be contaminants in many of these products (lead, mercury, etc). Will this drop it, or will these make it back into the fuel. If so, then not a great thing. OTH, if not, sounds like a wonder way to get cheap energy.
Yup. What I find crazy is that far too many ppl would rather save a buck today, and ignore the future. The 'Stick' house that my family built in the 70's had 7000 sq foot (650 sq meter). But my dad said that energy was the key, so we built it out to have R-40 in the ceiling and just under R-30 in the walls. Even the windows and skylights were light years ahead by being double panned and coated (common today, but expensive back then). What amazed me is that I found out that even 2 years ago, the last owner paid less than 1000 for HVAC on the house for all of last year, and he had expanded the house by another 2000 sq ft (200 sq. meter). Oddly the insurance and tax on the house was many times more.
About 2 years, one of the GE bulbs that I bought caught on fire. It was an R-30 that was in a can. Likewise, we have had 10 GE china-made bulbs die within their first year (include a 180W rated one; expensive bugger to lose). That is a LOT OF BULBS to lose the more so considering how expensive they are.
OTH, I have replaced most of the GE with Mexico made Phillips and not a one has gone out. I think that this is about quality rather than it being CFL. The Phillips costs a bit more up front, but they are costing me less over the long haul.
BTW, just bought one of the LED bulbs from Walmart. Died within 6 months. Though to be fair, I had it on an X-10 circuit. The switch was one of the more expensive ones, that claimed to work for CFL and LED, but I think that there was still bleed and that is most likely what caused.
Have to say that I love the X-10 for incandescents, but man, it is murder on none incandescents.
Susan Elliot from Highlands Ranch. And I know some of the sales ppl here. Going to talk to them. This will not be a hobby. I have far more important things to do. BUT, I will likely push it for several of the new areas going in. And not to knock the teacher, but I am more interested in getting names from well known scientists/engineers on the road. The teacher will not be known in history, but a child living on Watson ave, just may learn about DNA.
I live in Highlands Ranch, CO. Recently, I was watching Eureka, and they spoke about something living at the corner of Watson and Crick. I though that was BRILLIANT. LOVED THE WAY THAT SOUNDED. Dawned on me that our society no longer reveres scientist and brilliance. Instead, they love criminals like Bill Gates, Michael Vick, T.I., pimp C, etc.
I have been trying recently to get a hold of some folks from Shea Homes to get them to name some of the new roads coming into Highlands ranch after Scientists and perhaps after a couple of Top Teacher or two (perhaps Susan Elliot Way).
But I would give next to zero chance. But good luck, guys. It takes a decent amount of money to get something off the ground, let alone get it up there and back.
They'd have to figure out how to get it on a rocket and to work on the Moon first. Doesn't sound like a two year project...
Strange. I think that Musk's goal is to have transportation available to the moon very soon, rather than later. Why is he quietly working on a H2/LOX engine? Not likely for launch. At this time, he needs to have a number of places to send LVs to; Private Space Station, ISS, Lunar orbit, lunar surface, servicing of sats, etc. The only feasible way to do that is via a tug.
I will be surprised if shortly after a falcon 9 successful launch, if he does not announce the tug along with a fuel depot. At that point, he will be shooting for the moon.
Um, no. I had been voting Libertarian for MANY ELECTIONS (including Rob Paul). I have simply opposed you neo-cons. There are FAR too many neo-cons that try to claim that they are Libertarian and then try to control the party. Sadly, these days, it is working. That thought that we had Barr, a true fucking neo-con, as a candidate made my skin crawl. Now, do I support all elements? Nope. But then again, neither do you, or other wanna-be's.
So, in your word, go back to your party. You bring illogical and irrational thoughts to my party.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this will land on the moon within 2 years. That would be a spectacle to see. I think that if I were Apple or Ellison, I might consider funding it. ANother one might be Paul Allen. Allen has always been on the cutting edge of tech (and unlike his previous partner, not stealing it). Hopefully, he considers talking to carmack and getting this going there. Something like would be likely to spark the kids a bit more.
really? The pubs had control of congress from 94-2000, while the dems had control of the presendcy; The pubs had TOTAL control of dc from 2000-2006. pubs had WH from 2006-2008, while neither party control congress during that time (dems controlled house, but the pubs had a slight edge on the senate).
So, where did it get us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
It MASSIVELY shot up when pubs had total control.
It does not appear to matter which congress has it, but which president has it. For example, reagan and W never saw a deficit that they did not love. OTH, CLINTON (a dem) fought against the neo-con deficit and turned it around. So do the dem controlled congress of the 60's/70's, who paid off most of WWII debt.
hehehehe. Yeah, I love the differences in slang. Way too funny. My wife is UK-borne Indian and sometimes interesting to hear what she has to say about the language.
Normally, I try to assume that somebody is from another country before assuming the worse about them. It pays off more often than not. What is odd is how many/.ers assume that everybody is American.
BTW, I am not certain, but I think that pasties are pretty much gone, except for waitresses. It was something from the 50's, in 'respectable' places like Las Vegas. To be honest, I would not be surprised if I am wrong. I could see places in the bible belt requiring them.
Yeah, the cap/trade is going to be a true disaster in the making. I think that it will be destroying the west. EU pushes their companies to be loyal and stay there, but we have not done that since reagan. Add in more expensive energy, combined with much of Asia having their money fixed against the dollar as well as major trade barriers, I think that we will not only see the wholesale destruction of much of the west, but that our energy bill will have the exact opposite impact. Basically, GE coal plants will simply shift to China/India/Brazil/Mexico, etc and these countries will grab them as a way to get "cheap" energy in relatively quickly.
As to the tax, I think that it really is not that hard. Make is a sales tax, base it on which country the majority of the item came from. Obviously, some companies will try to play games, but, I think that a rap on the hand, along with a stiff fine, will get their attention.
hehehe. Sorry. I am really punchy. I have been up working on rebuilding a system for a bit . You may wish to
check out that last definition here and re-read what I wrote (or should I re-read your post?).
Slashdot Mirror
Even more amazing is that the shuttle has a rate of about 1 in 65.
What that shows more about the NASA of old, is that they made choices that were gutsy and capable of killing their crew. The new NASA regularly makes similar choices and it has not always panned out (IOW, the new NASA is not that indifferent from the old NASA). But it also shows that we need to take some chances. I forget who said it, but that we NEED to kill some ppl every so often, or it is a sign that we are not pushing ourselves hard enough. More importantly, we need to NOT be afraid of this. Life is great, but SOME things are worth giving it up for. And pushing into space is one of them.
about it. According to the envion site, we recycle only 4% of our plastic. That is it. And according to other sites, most of that is recycled in China. We even pay them to take it. Now, how useful would a process like Envion be? Well, it would allow us to recycle plastics LOCALLY. Right at the sites where garbage is taken. For example, Waste Management would likely be a prime buyer of these. They will change from PAYING somebody to take the plastics to somebody who turns it into cheap oil. According to the website, it can handle ALL PLASTICS. That makes sorting trivial and CHEAP.Since it just uses simple light to break it down, it means that it can use AE (namely wind and solar) as its energy input stream. And that oil is then able to be used as energy OR plastic feed. So, what is interesting about this? With cost this low, it will likely lead towards payment for plastic similar to what happens with aluminum and copper. It will not be as high, but it will be up there. Basically, THIS could get us to recycle a great deal more plastics than what we currently do. As it is, do you see metal cans on the roadside? RARELY. Why? Because it pays to recycle those. Ppl either save them, or they collect them and recycle them. Offices will likely collect these. And in the waste streams, it will be viable to have ppl sorting out metals, glass, plastics, and paper. I am not certain if glass and paper have have cheap recycling, but with so much of a waste stream being profitably recycled, it will make it possible.
Now, how is that different than the company that you represent? It really is not. You are BOTH using waste streams and creating oil. The big difference is that plastic is already here. It will remain here because there are really no alternatives. OTH, Doty absolutely depends on a waste stream from Coal/Natural Gas. Without pure CO2, then it is too high costs. In addition, doty ignores the high need for water (and purified at that). That will work great in eastern USA/EU, but here in the western USA as well as many parts of the world, that will be at high cost. My guess is that we will see Nukes being used to create that hydrogen, not wind. But the one thing that you seem to miss is that if you take electricity (loss over the power lines), Convert water to hydrogen (loss of efficiency), combine it with CO2, that is then burned in ICE. The overall efficiency of that is staggering. I am guessing that less than 20% (more likely 10%) of the originally generated energy actually arrives to the wheel (loss of energy over the powers + loss of conversion of h2o -> h2/O2 + loss of transportation of h2 + normal loss of oil based/ICE system). It does recycle once what is a waste stream, there by increasing the efficiency of system, as well as helps to reduce dependency on oil, BUT it is still inefficient.
In the end, I suspect that both Envion and Doty will have their place in society.
1) the recycleables we send them are for various reasons. ....
shredded plastics. Type 1, 2, and 6 plastics are recylced right here, most of which is sent to our local bottling plants and never leaves the state (unless the newly filled bottle does).
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6132
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/09/recycling-global-recession-china
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1942906.ece
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Recycling/Problem-With-Plastics5jun03.htm
It IS carbon nuetral. The CO2 input into the gas is from already expelled CO2. They are not using any stored source of CO2 in the process, so they are not introducing CO2 that would not already have been released. That is the scientific definition of carbon nuetral! The energy in the system is entirely from wind. No additional oil or energy is required, nor does it remove from the economy another product that reqwuires more oil.
Oh, goody. With that logic, then we should be able to shut down the coal and natural gas input stream and get all the electricity as well as hydrocarbons that we want.
The doty process absolutely is NOT carbon neutral. If it was, then you would simply be able to capture it from the air. It depends on Natural gas and Coal being burned and having a relatively pure stream of CO2. What it does is increase the efficiency of the burning of coal/natural gas process. Now, that is not a bad thing. The more so, considering that we sending billions of dollar elsewhere to buy oil in the ground. BUT, to claim that it is carbon neutral is at best a W-level "disingenuous".
Which is why I was suggesting a skimmer, rather than a net. There is a variety of life there. As far as picking up the plankton, I think that it is a given that we are going to pick up a far amount of it if we pick up the plastic. But, I would think that having the plastic sitting there would be more of an issue than skimming some of of the life. In addition, the real question should be how to stop this in the future.
Hmmm. Let see. There are many processes to clean up water. Many of them now involve membranes. They get overused and sometimes minor holes are introduced. That would allow the water to QUIETLY be contaminated. Here is a test that will show whether the sieve is working or not. And you, as well as the person that modded you up, think that a simple test to show if water is clean is stupid. Seriously?
First, this cleaned up oil, would NOT have to be used as energy. It instead could be used input for.... Plastics.
Second, we send a SIGNIFICANT amount of recycle plastics back to CHina. The AMAZING thing is that we PAY THEM FOR IT. We are PAYING TO SEND OUR RECYCLABLES TO OTHER NATIONS. WHy? Because landfills are too expensive and re-processing it, up until this, was too expensive.
Third, you have been busy pushing doty, and yet, they have nothing. Let see you get it up and running first. Also, it is absolutely NOT CARBON neutral. In fact, it is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT than this process. It is simply making a wasteful process more efficient.
Now, to be honest, if Doty AND envion can make it happen, then things are GREAT. The simple fact is, that oil will continue to go up in price. If we recycle all of our already bought plastics into either energy or input for more plastics (local), AND if we can turn out oil from what is currently considered a pollutant (though it is not), then things are good.
Much of the plastic is decomposing. Any net will ONLY catch large pieces while ignoring the bulk of it. Worse, it will destroy a lot of life. A decent skimmer boat would instead allow, in fact encourage, biologicals (seen as contaminate to the process) to get out of the way.
Actually, it had nothing to do with trading skills. It has everything to do with several other factors. Probably 2 of the most important was reagan cutting way back on RD and having that continue under W. The second and more important is that we are no longer automated. At one time, America had the highest productivity per laborer. The reason was that we were highly automated. Then we quit automating. Why? Because the republicans allow (in fact, encourage) ILLEGAL LABOR. Now, the dems are backing that strategy, but they do it for the votes. BOTH are destroying our country. The illegals basically lower the costs of goods, so that discourages automation. Problem is, even when paid 1/2 of minimum, they they are still getting paid more than what China, India, Brazil, etc are paid. Germany has stiff laws on illegals. Hard to get jobs there. That is smart. You want to keep pressure on the companies to keep automating.
If America is going to get back into the game of building and manufactuering, we MUST do several things:
America is screwed unless we takes these steps.
Actually, there are many impurities in various plastics. PVC comes to mind. You really would rather not burn the chlorine (though it might be recycled for other items). There are others in there as well.
I doubt that such a ship would be economical, BUT, a different approach would be to build small robotic solar powered skimmers (say 12'/4 meters or so). They could pick up the plastics (which is generally not that large) and then bring it back to a main ship. That main ship could then simply take from the skimmers and at least condense it down.
At this time, America buys overpriced products from overseas, watches them break in no time, then in a fit of environmentalism, we recycle it. Where does it go? Back to china for cheap cheap input back into vastly overpriced products.
Now, we are talking about converting this plastic to cheap fuel. Sounds like a winner to me. My only question is, there tend to be contaminants in many of these products (lead, mercury, etc). Will this drop it, or will these make it back into the fuel. If so, then not a great thing. OTH, if not, sounds like a wonder way to get cheap energy.
Yup. What I find crazy is that far too many ppl would rather save a buck today, and ignore the future. The 'Stick' house that my family built in the 70's had 7000 sq foot (650 sq meter). But my dad said that energy was the key, so we built it out to have R-40 in the ceiling and just under R-30 in the walls. Even the windows and skylights were light years ahead by being double panned and coated (common today, but expensive back then). What amazed me is that I found out that even 2 years ago, the last owner paid less than 1000 for HVAC on the house for all of last year, and he had expanded the house by another 2000 sq ft (200 sq. meter). Oddly the insurance and tax on the house was many times more.
About 2 years, one of the GE bulbs that I bought caught on fire. It was an R-30 that was in a can. Likewise, we have had 10 GE china-made bulbs die within their first year (include a 180W rated one; expensive bugger to lose). That is a LOT OF BULBS to lose the more so considering how expensive they are.
OTH, I have replaced most of the GE with Mexico made Phillips and not a one has gone out. I think that this is about quality rather than it being CFL. The Phillips costs a bit more up front, but they are costing me less over the long haul.
BTW, just bought one of the LED bulbs from Walmart. Died within 6 months. Though to be fair, I had it on an X-10 circuit. The switch was one of the more expensive ones, that claimed to work for CFL and LED, but I think that there was still bleed and that is most likely what caused. Have to say that I love the X-10 for incandescents, but man, it is murder on none incandescents.
Susan Elliot from Highlands Ranch. And I know some of the sales ppl here. Going to talk to them. This will not be a hobby. I have far more important things to do. BUT, I will likely push it for several of the new areas going in. And not to knock the teacher, but I am more interested in getting names from well known scientists/engineers on the road. The teacher will not be known in history, but a child living on Watson ave, just may learn about DNA.
I live in Highlands Ranch, CO. Recently, I was watching Eureka, and they spoke about something living at the corner of Watson and Crick. I though that was BRILLIANT. LOVED THE WAY THAT SOUNDED. Dawned on me that our society no longer reveres scientist and brilliance. Instead, they love criminals like Bill Gates, Michael Vick, T.I., pimp C, etc.
I have been trying recently to get a hold of some folks from Shea Homes to get them to name some of the new roads coming into Highlands ranch after Scientists and perhaps after a couple of Top Teacher or two (perhaps Susan Elliot Way).
But I would give next to zero chance. But good luck, guys. It takes a decent amount of money to get something off the ground, let alone get it up there and back.
Google's android will win out. MS locks you into crap expensive software, while Mac locks you into crappy expensive networks.
They'd have to figure out how to get it on a rocket and to work on the Moon first. Doesn't sound like a two year project...
Strange. I think that Musk's goal is to have transportation available to the moon very soon, rather than later. Why is he quietly working on a H2/LOX engine? Not likely for launch. At this time, he needs to have a number of places to send LVs to; Private Space Station, ISS, Lunar orbit, lunar surface, servicing of sats, etc. The only feasible way to do that is via a tug. I will be surprised if shortly after a falcon 9 successful launch, if he does not announce the tug along with a fuel depot. At that point, he will be shooting for the moon.
Um, no. I had been voting Libertarian for MANY ELECTIONS (including Rob Paul). I have simply opposed you neo-cons. There are FAR too many neo-cons that try to claim that they are Libertarian and then try to control the party. Sadly, these days, it is working. That thought that we had Barr, a true fucking neo-con, as a candidate made my skin crawl. Now, do I support all elements? Nope. But then again, neither do you, or other wanna-be's.
So, in your word, go back to your party. You bring illogical and irrational thoughts to my party.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this will land on the moon within 2 years. That would be a spectacle to see. I think that if I were Apple or Ellison, I might consider funding it. ANother one might be Paul Allen. Allen has always been on the cutting edge of tech (and unlike his previous partner, not stealing it). Hopefully, he considers talking to carmack and getting this going there. Something like would be likely to spark the kids a bit more.
really? The pubs had control of congress from 94-2000, while the dems had control of the presendcy; The pubs had TOTAL control of dc from 2000-2006. pubs had WH from 2006-2008, while neither party control congress during that time (dems controlled house, but the pubs had a slight edge on the senate).
So, where did it get us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms It MASSIVELY shot up when pubs had total control. It does not appear to matter which congress has it, but which president has it. For example, reagan and W never saw a deficit that they did not love. OTH, CLINTON (a dem) fought against the neo-con deficit and turned it around. So do the dem controlled congress of the 60's/70's, who paid off most of WWII debt.
hehehehe. Yeah, I love the differences in slang. Way too funny. My wife is UK-borne Indian and sometimes interesting to hear what she has to say about the language.
/.ers assume that everybody is American.
Normally, I try to assume that somebody is from another country before assuming the worse about them. It pays off more often than not. What is odd is how many
BTW, I am not certain, but I think that pasties are pretty much gone, except for waitresses. It was something from the 50's, in 'respectable' places like Las Vegas. To be honest, I would not be surprised if I am wrong. I could see places in the bible belt requiring them.
Yeah, the cap/trade is going to be a true disaster in the making. I think that it will be destroying the west. EU pushes their companies to be loyal and stay there, but we have not done that since reagan. Add in more expensive energy, combined with much of Asia having their money fixed against the dollar as well as major trade barriers, I think that we will not only see the wholesale destruction of much of the west, but that our energy bill will have the exact opposite impact. Basically, GE coal plants will simply shift to China/India/Brazil/Mexico, etc and these countries will grab them as a way to get "cheap" energy in relatively quickly.
As to the tax, I think that it really is not that hard. Make is a sales tax, base it on which country the majority of the item came from. Obviously, some companies will try to play games, but, I think that a rap on the hand, along with a stiff fine, will get their attention.
hehehe. Sorry. I am really punchy. I have been up working on rebuilding a system for a bit . You may wish to check out that last definition here and re-read what I wrote (or should I re-read your post?).