i thought iranians were persians with a different god from muslims, also i seem to remember that they were enemies of al-queda also i might be just dreaming this whole thing up....
Iranians are not Arabs, but they are almost purelyMuslim. 89-90% Shi'ite Muslim, 9% Sunni Muslim, and 0.4-2% all other religions. That doesn't leave much room for atheists and agnostics!
Have you been to Iran? I was just there two months ago. The majority of the population hates their government, but they are too scared to do anything about it.
I don't know if it's too scared, or more likely too goddam lazy to commit, organize, rise up, and send it to hell. As an American, I would say it's a pretty fair bet that the majority of Americans hate what has become of their government, but have the same reaction.
Oh, well as others have noted, it could be done in pretty much exactly the same way as we GET NEON. We extract neon from the atmosphere at 18 ppm. We could extract helium the same way at 5 ppm. Yeah, it would cost more than exploiting current sources, but don't act like it's some kind of mystery. It's basically just cooling and fractional distillation.
The entire atmosphere contains vast amounts of radiogenically originated helium. It is a very small proportion of the atmosphere; about 5 ppm by volume, or 0.7 ppm by mass; but that still represents a truly enormous number of cubic meters. Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of 5×10^18 kg, and 0.7 millionths of that figure gives us 3.5x10^11 kg, or 2 trillion cubic meters, of helium.
Annual consumption of helium is around 200 million cubic meters (enough to fill 1000 Hindenburgs). The atmosphere contains an amount of helium equal to 10,000 years production at current rates. Even using 10% of that potential would give us a supply of helium to last at least as long as the supply of other important consumable natural resources.
It's not only possible; it's a simple fact. Helium is so cheap in the USA that nobody bothers to recycle it. In Europe and elsewhere, helium is more expensive, and recycling is SOP.
It's an interesting idea, but unfortunately physical reality rarely conforms to wishes. Any such mixture, sufficient to eliminate flammability, would detract so much from the lift of hydrogen as to render it useless for the purpose of lifting anything. It would never get off the ground.
The statement is correct, but the Mythbusters pop pseudo-science is, as usual, a very poor source.
The subject is treated exhaustively in the material linked to here. The Dessler and Overs/Dessler/Appleby papers are well researched, expertly informed, and painstakingly tested. They THOROUGHLY debunk the silly incendiary paint theory.
The envelope could and did burn as part of the HYDROGEN inferno, contributed substantially to the energy liberated in the fire, gave (together with the gas cells and other substances) the fire its brilliant color and added smoke, but absolutely did not constitute the initially ignited fuel, or drive the ferocious rapidity of the fire.
Yours is an on objective and thoughtful comment. I would just like to add some more which I don't think is well recognized.
The individual mandate idea originated with Republicans and conservative think tanks. Hilary Clinton took up the idea, but Candidate Obama did not favor it, and had some sensible and insightful things to say about it (see link). Somehow the idea found its way into the healthcare bill, which then went on to be adopted without a single Republican vote. Yet Republicans who favored their own mandate-including bills earlier criticized the mandate when it was part of a Democrat bill (same link again). Anyone could be forgiven for being completely bewildered and whipsawed on this issue.
Anybody who thinks the facts given on the page linked are mistaken, please make your case. At this point, I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. Some of the people I respected on this issue have revealed themselves over time to be hypocrites, and I am wide open on this subject.
the idea is not to have a system where the doctor gets paid more to run more tests. which is what we currently have
pay the doctor the same whether he runs no tests or 100 tests and you will get the actual number of tests needed to diagnose a patient
You see that a system that encourages and rewards performing unneeded tests is bad, yet you don't see anything wrong with a system that would encourage and reward skipping needed tests? Really?
IMHO AC is right on the money with the comment about both political parties, but the part about percentage increases is irrelevant. The figures are presented in CONSTANT DOLLARS - i.e., inflation is corrected for. If we have X number of constant dollars of debt right now, what matters for the purpose of assigning blame is who is guilty of contributing the largest part of X, plain and simple.
I think it's more of an irrational dislike of diesel engines rather than an irrational fear of diesel fuel, and it's not universal. I have a RATIONAL dislike of gasoline engines, because I know in the USA you can't get actual pure gasoline to put in them any more. Instead you have to put heavily ethanol-tainted fuel in them, and performance goes to crap, particularly for classic cars, but also seriously so for all gasoline engine cars. OTOH, diesel fuel is still quite pure, and if there is a biodiesel component, which is true more and more, it has very little to zero deleterious effect on performance. As a result, I have driven predominantly diesel cars for the last 30 years, and have had only a diesel car for the last 13 years.
With modern refining techniques it is possible to vary the fractional output with respect to the various products, so you aren't stuck with a fixed arbitrary percentage of gasoline and another fixed arbitrary percentage of diesel fuel. But yes, it's true the USA refines more diesel fuel than it consumes, the excess going to Europe and other areas.
But the limit on RUNNING nuke plants is the amount of uranium we can mine, refine and process, and the amount of plutonium we can make from uranium. Unless and until you perfect designs that leverage use of thorium to reduce (not eliminate) the amount of uranium required.
Correct. And do you know how much greater the volume is? Two and one half percent (2.5%). A very slight difference. Not like it's twice as much or something. People might want to know this qualification.
I heard the other day that our oil exports now exceed our oil imports.
If what you heard is talking about CRUDE oil, which is what counts, then what you heard is WRONG. It is astonishing that anyone would believe such an absurd claim.
For the 4 week period ending September 14, crude oil trade was:
imports, 8.986 million barrels per day
Exports, 0.040 million barrels per day
Net, 8.946 million barrels per day IMPORTS
What you heard was probably talking about oil PRODUCTS, which were indeed a net outflow:
Imports, 2.206 million barrels per day
Exports, 2.838 million barrels per day
Net, 0.632 million barrels per day EXPORTS
Oil products are gasoline, blending components, distillates, kerosene, jet fuel, propane, and so on. Almost the entire volume of these products comes from, you guessed it, crude oil. So the USA imports crude oil, processes it, and exports a large proportion of the resulting products. Corporations are making money by importing the raw material (crude oil), refining it and processing it into various products, and selling these products overseas. Economics 101, to be sure, but what it means is that some substantial portion of the USA crude oil imports (far from the major portion, however), are not necessitated by domestic use.
Not just because they don't work. Because they are inherently EVIL. I'm going to go on record predicting that neither of the major candidates has any prospect at all to be convinced on this subject. I feel my exposure to being wrong in this prediction is next to nil.
Anyway, only the legislative or judicial branches have the power to accomplish what we both want. I know President Obama thinks he can executive order whatever the fuck he wants on its own, and I know he has gotten away with it in various matters to date, but there are those of us who know it isn't Constitutional.
I humbly submit a correction. All the FAT PIGS with huge moneybags for legal combat will tend to end at a standoff, but all the garage innovators will be shit out of luck. That is not a desirable outlook for the economy. Small and micro business is the lifeblood of an economy, and represents the hopes and dreams of the individual.
Yeah, here's a history lesson for you, since you say someone needs one.
HMS ARGUS was the first true modern aircraft carrier with a full length flight deck on which wheeled aircraft could both take off and land, a hangar deck below, with two elevators between the decks. No arresting gear was necessary, given the low landing speeds of the day, but it was added after completion She was commissioned on 16 September 1918, which says to me she was indeed "created in World War I".
Even earlier aircraft carriers, sans some of the attributes which distinguished ARGUS and all the classic carriers. HMS FURIOUS was a cruiser completed with a hangar and abbreviated flight deck forward replacing the forward turret. Wheeled airplanes successfully both took off from and landed on the flight deck as early as 1917. She was further modified in 1918, adding another flight deck, replacing the aft turret, and intended specifically for landing since the forward one was so short and poorly placed as to be extremely hazardous for landing. She launched a successful airplane raid against the Tondern Zeppelin sheds in July 1918.
That is why it saddens me to see what the workings of your political system seems to have become.
It saddens, angers, dispirits, and shames us too.
Democracy is imperfect, and unfortunately vulnerable, but it's far better than the alternatives.
Actually, it's not the best imaginable, just better than the LIKELY alternatives. An enlightened, beneficent, incorrupt, infallible, and libertarian dictatorship or monarchy would be much better. It's just that experience has shown that these very seldom come about, never endure when they do, and usually end up in a spectacular disaster. But a dictatorship of a stupid, ignorant democratic majority is pretty ugly and hellishly difficult to fix.
I believe just about all intelligent and informed people emphatically agree with you about the pernicious false left/right divide, and a lot of us see an evil conspiracy in it.
who [Reagan] spend us into the level of debt we are in now
I see you are either suffering from ignorance of the simple statistical data, or have been brainwashed. Neither of these are character flaws; they are simply deficiencies. Not accepting the truth after being made aware of the misconception would be a character flaw.
Gee. Reagan and Clinton were almost exactly the same in terms of accumulated debt. GHW Bush was almost twice as bad considering he only had half as long to work with running up debt as either of the former. And GW Bush and Obama were SPECTACULARLY the worst. Obama has been much worse than GW so far, but both are an unparalleled absolute disaster.
Fact: 9 trillion of the 15 trillion cumulative debt outstanding as of the end of September 2011 and accumulated since the founding of the Republic is down to the GW + Obama period alone.
Note: all the yearly figures run from October through September, so they don't quite correspond to presidential terms, but they are very close.
Now, having corrected the spectacular misconception, here's something to chew on. Presidents can't spend a single dime without the House of Representatives budgeting it. The House has COMPLETE control over the purse strings. All the Presidents do is PROPOSE budgets to the House. Then after the House passes a budget the Senate and President have to concur with it; there is a dance of reconciliation between the House and Senate, and then the President just says "yeah fine, I guess" or "Hell no", after which Congress can still override the veto.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't legislate respect.
Iranians are not Arabs, but they are almost purely Muslim. 89-90% Shi'ite Muslim, 9% Sunni Muslim, and 0.4-2% all other religions. That doesn't leave much room for atheists and agnostics!
Are you serious? All the citations you need are right here. Religion of peace, my ass.
I don't know if it's too scared, or more likely too goddam lazy to commit, organize, rise up, and send it to hell. As an American, I would say it's a pretty fair bet that the majority of Americans hate what has become of their government, but have the same reaction.
Oh, well as others have noted, it could be done in pretty much exactly the same way as we GET NEON. We extract neon from the atmosphere at 18 ppm. We could extract helium the same way at 5 ppm. Yeah, it would cost more than exploiting current sources, but don't act like it's some kind of mystery. It's basically just cooling and fractional distillation.
Now now, don't get all defensive. The idea doesn't work. Period. Do you really think no one would have done it if it would work?
Your statement about kerosene in jet engines is not making any sense at all? Perhaps you would care to make it a coherent thought?
The entire atmosphere contains vast amounts of radiogenically originated helium. It is a very small proportion of the atmosphere; about 5 ppm by volume, or 0.7 ppm by mass; but that still represents a truly enormous number of cubic meters. Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of 5×10^18 kg, and 0.7 millionths of that figure gives us 3.5x10^11 kg, or 2 trillion cubic meters, of helium.
Annual consumption of helium is around 200 million cubic meters (enough to fill 1000 Hindenburgs). The atmosphere contains an amount of helium equal to 10,000 years production at current rates. Even using 10% of that potential would give us a supply of helium to last at least as long as the supply of other important consumable natural resources.
It's not only possible; it's a simple fact. Helium is so cheap in the USA that nobody bothers to recycle it. In Europe and elsewhere, helium is more expensive, and recycling is SOP.
It's an interesting idea, but unfortunately physical reality rarely conforms to wishes. Any such mixture, sufficient to eliminate flammability, would detract so much from the lift of hydrogen as to render it useless for the purpose of lifting anything. It would never get off the ground.
The statement is correct, but the Mythbusters pop pseudo-science is, as usual, a very poor source.
The subject is treated exhaustively in the material linked to here. The Dessler and Overs/Dessler/Appleby papers are well researched, expertly informed, and painstakingly tested. They THOROUGHLY debunk the silly incendiary paint theory.
The envelope could and did burn as part of the HYDROGEN inferno, contributed substantially to the energy liberated in the fire, gave (together with the gas cells and other substances) the fire its brilliant color and added smoke, but absolutely did not constitute the initially ignited fuel, or drive the ferocious rapidity of the fire.
Yours is an on objective and thoughtful comment. I would just like to add some more which I don't think is well recognized.
The individual mandate idea originated with Republicans and conservative think tanks. Hilary Clinton took up the idea, but Candidate Obama did not favor it, and had some sensible and insightful things to say about it (see link). Somehow the idea found its way into the healthcare bill, which then went on to be adopted without a single Republican vote. Yet Republicans who favored their own mandate-including bills earlier criticized the mandate when it was part of a Democrat bill (same link again). Anyone could be forgiven for being completely bewildered and whipsawed on this issue.
Anybody who thinks the facts given on the page linked are mistaken, please make your case. At this point, I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. Some of the people I respected on this issue have revealed themselves over time to be hypocrites, and I am wide open on this subject.
You see that a system that encourages and rewards performing unneeded tests is bad, yet you don't see anything wrong with a system that would encourage and reward skipping needed tests? Really?
IMHO AC is right on the money with the comment about both political parties, but the part about percentage increases is irrelevant. The figures are presented in CONSTANT DOLLARS - i.e., inflation is corrected for. If we have X number of constant dollars of debt right now, what matters for the purpose of assigning blame is who is guilty of contributing the largest part of X, plain and simple.
Debt is the integral of annual deficit over time.
I think it's more of an irrational dislike of diesel engines rather than an irrational fear of diesel fuel, and it's not universal. I have a RATIONAL dislike of gasoline engines, because I know in the USA you can't get actual pure gasoline to put in them any more. Instead you have to put heavily ethanol-tainted fuel in them, and performance goes to crap, particularly for classic cars, but also seriously so for all gasoline engine cars. OTOH, diesel fuel is still quite pure, and if there is a biodiesel component, which is true more and more, it has very little to zero deleterious effect on performance. As a result, I have driven predominantly diesel cars for the last 30 years, and have had only a diesel car for the last 13 years.
With modern refining techniques it is possible to vary the fractional output with respect to the various products, so you aren't stuck with a fixed arbitrary percentage of gasoline and another fixed arbitrary percentage of diesel fuel. But yes, it's true the USA refines more diesel fuel than it consumes, the excess going to Europe and other areas.
Not I. I have better things to do with my time than watch the histrionics of an evil, hate-filled, unobjective, supercilious, stupid son of a bitch.
But the limit on RUNNING nuke plants is the amount of uranium we can mine, refine and process, and the amount of plutonium we can make from uranium. Unless and until you perfect designs that leverage use of thorium to reduce (not eliminate) the amount of uranium required.
Funny, I just did that and it's noticeably cooler than it was yesterday. Does that mean it's not happening? /sarcasm
Correct. And do you know how much greater the volume is? Two and one half percent (2.5%). A very slight difference. Not like it's twice as much or something. People might want to know this qualification.
If what you heard is talking about CRUDE oil, which is what counts, then what you heard is WRONG. It is astonishing that anyone would believe such an absurd claim.
For the 4 week period ending September 14, crude oil trade was:
imports, 8.986 million barrels per day
Exports, 0.040 million barrels per day
Net, 8.946 million barrels per day IMPORTS
What you heard was probably talking about oil PRODUCTS, which were indeed a net outflow:
Imports, 2.206 million barrels per day
Exports, 2.838 million barrels per day
Net, 0.632 million barrels per day EXPORTS
reference
Oil products are gasoline, blending components, distillates, kerosene, jet fuel, propane, and so on. Almost the entire volume of these products comes from, you guessed it, crude oil. So the USA imports crude oil, processes it, and exports a large proportion of the resulting products. Corporations are making money by importing the raw material (crude oil), refining it and processing it into various products, and selling these products overseas. Economics 101, to be sure, but what it means is that some substantial portion of the USA crude oil imports (far from the major portion, however), are not necessitated by domestic use.
Open source is a license and has nothing to do with patents.
Not just because they don't work. Because they are inherently EVIL. I'm going to go on record predicting that neither of the major candidates has any prospect at all to be convinced on this subject. I feel my exposure to being wrong in this prediction is next to nil.
Anyway, only the legislative or judicial branches have the power to accomplish what we both want. I know President Obama thinks he can executive order whatever the fuck he wants on its own, and I know he has gotten away with it in various matters to date, but there are those of us who know it isn't Constitutional.
I humbly submit a correction. All the FAT PIGS with huge moneybags for legal combat will tend to end at a standoff, but all the garage innovators will be shit out of luck. That is not a desirable outlook for the economy. Small and micro business is the lifeblood of an economy, and represents the hopes and dreams of the individual.
Yeah, here's a history lesson for you, since you say someone needs one.
HMS ARGUS was the first true modern aircraft carrier with a full length flight deck on which wheeled aircraft could both take off and land, a hangar deck below, with two elevators between the decks. No arresting gear was necessary, given the low landing speeds of the day, but it was added after completion She was commissioned on 16 September 1918, which says to me she was indeed "created in World War I".
Even earlier aircraft carriers, sans some of the attributes which distinguished ARGUS and all the classic carriers. HMS FURIOUS was a cruiser completed with a hangar and abbreviated flight deck forward replacing the forward turret. Wheeled airplanes successfully both took off from and landed on the flight deck as early as 1917. She was further modified in 1918, adding another flight deck, replacing the aft turret, and intended specifically for landing since the forward one was so short and poorly placed as to be extremely hazardous for landing. She launched a successful airplane raid against the Tondern Zeppelin sheds in July 1918.
It saddens, angers, dispirits, and shames us too.
Actually, it's not the best imaginable, just better than the LIKELY alternatives. An enlightened, beneficent, incorrupt, infallible, and libertarian dictatorship or monarchy would be much better. It's just that experience has shown that these very seldom come about, never endure when they do, and usually end up in a spectacular disaster. But a dictatorship of a stupid, ignorant democratic majority is pretty ugly and hellishly difficult to fix.
I believe just about all intelligent and informed people emphatically agree with you about the pernicious false left/right divide, and a lot of us see an evil conspiracy in it.
I see you are either suffering from ignorance of the simple statistical data, or have been brainwashed. Neither of these are character flaws; they are simply deficiencies. Not accepting the truth after being made aware of the misconception would be a character flaw.
Cumulative deficit spending in constant dollars:
Reagan, 8 years: 1.600 trillion
GHW Bush, 4 years: 1.462 trillion
Clinton, 8 years: 1.610 trillion
GW Bush, 8 years: 4.351 trillion
Obama, FIRST 3 YEARS ONLY: 4.765 trillion
Gee. Reagan and Clinton were almost exactly the same in terms of accumulated debt. GHW Bush was almost twice as bad considering he only had half as long to work with running up debt as either of the former. And GW Bush and Obama were SPECTACULARLY the worst. Obama has been much worse than GW so far, but both are an unparalleled absolute disaster.
Fact: 9 trillion of the 15 trillion cumulative debt outstanding as of the end of September 2011 and accumulated since the founding of the Republic is down to the GW + Obama period alone.
Note: all the yearly figures run from October through September, so they don't quite correspond to presidential terms, but they are very close.
Now, having corrected the spectacular misconception, here's something to chew on. Presidents can't spend a single dime without the House of Representatives budgeting it. The House has COMPLETE control over the purse strings. All the Presidents do is PROPOSE budgets to the House. Then after the House passes a budget the Senate and President have to concur with it; there is a dance of reconciliation between the House and Senate, and then the President just says "yeah fine, I guess" or "Hell no", after which Congress can still override the veto.