Nothing like trying to buck nature to ruin one's day.
It's been hotter before and colder before. Either it's going to get hotter first or colder first and not even the entire resources of the human race can prevent it. It's only a matter of when, regardless of the existance of mankind. At most we might postpone (or negatively )bring on the event slightly sooner than it would otherwise occur if mankind didn't exist at all. Throwing away scarce resources to solve problems which cannot be verified to actually exist means those resources are no longer available for other purposes - like maybe solving solving real problems that crop up from time to time.
As for Chriton, he was trained as a medical doctor, not that a few years training necessarily has a life long impact on learning and expertise. While being a med. doctor doesn't mean one is a research scientist, it does provide a great deal of foundation for being a very good one. Having read the appendices in his book, I found myself quite exhausted and if chriton actually read and studied all of those, he is probably more knowledgeable than a moderately competent climatic scientist and far more so than those cocktail swizzling gov. cling-on groupie types one sees being interviewed on the discovery channel.
Chriton's appendix on politicized science is quite a well done presentation that communicates some of the problem with the modern scientific community and the prostitution of science. As for peer reviewed assurances of quality - that's total BS. That old gal Ayn Rand explored the nature of perverting such systems in her early novels. Funny how she was referring to the same leftist subversive types that seem to be in control of the debate now. Newton's Principia was not peer reviewed nor would it have seen the light of publication had there been such a system. Nevermind the really controversial topics of Renaisance era cosmology.
As for the results of politicized science, it cannot be trusted as even the very raw data is likely to be faked in order to achieve the desired political agenda. It's not merely the matter of selective funding and the competition of getting funding that distorts it. It's not actually science as it merely holds the trappings of such.
What do you expect from a divinity school flunk-out? If algor junior wasn't the son of a racist democrat senator, didn't fit the leftist model and didn't look like a graduate of the Troy McNamara school of plastic surgery, he'd be a hair stylist at the local strip mall in Chatahoochi. (assuming he hadn't joined Jim Jones in Guyana).
There will be successful investments and opportunities in space. Probably far fewer will succeed than will fail. Figuring out which will be which is not something algor is capable of doing. Of course, mining operations on the moon investments apparently existed long before the possibility of getting there included a real approach.
As usual, some of the posts above show an absence of knowledge and understanding about even the most fundamental basics of economics. For those posters - I suggest quickly go invest in air-america.
That and eye separation etc - a much more difficult problem to overcome. However, anyone willing to wear a mask and view with only 1 eye while hiding the other could succeed in fooling even that. I guess people who believe in and promote biometrics are dealing with such complex issues as to make thinking outside the box extremely difficult. Those desiring to fool biometrics apparently don't have nearly that sort of difficulty, typically constrained by morality more than by other constraints.
Need a finger print for scanning? One can go to great lengths to acquire a sample and fabricate an immitation that might work. Or, one can simply take the finger - either with or without the rest of the person and it's going to work.
Visual biometrics is like many other sets of similar thing such as creating text fonts versus character recognition or voice recognition versus a speech synthesizer. Video graphics is far easier than the video recognition. They are paired but they do not have a reciprocity in the complexity. What's worse is that the recognition/comparision complexity is subject to far more innaccuracies and to being fooled.
Until someone can fabricate human (or close to human) level intellegence in the artifical realm, don't expect biometrics to carry out much. Of course, if one gets to that level, will it be possible to fabricate an artificial being that will perform its duty honestly or even to continue to function with the realization that it is artificial. How would you like being forced to be a stationary object stuck on the side of a wall in an airport with nothing to do but look at faces of travelers coming and going to all the exotic places of the world?
Considering such jobs now done by people (who actually might have a life too) require a great deal of training, it's doubtful that there will ever be enough of them to adaquately handle the small fraction those in society refusing to abide by society's basic rules or even seeking to destroy society, it's rather hard to imagine enough of them to deal with the much greater number of the relatively normal too. Of course, there are much better low tech ways to deal with them - such as the mandatory participation used by most if not all tyrannies during modern times. After all, when everyone participates in ratting out their friends and family, including reporting the participation (or lack there of) of others, it becomes a web from where there isn't escape.
Re:Practical uses. 1 step forward 10 steps back
on
A Single Pixel Camera
·
· Score: 1
One must experience Rice to gain intuition on it but suffice to say it might be cutting edge at something but it probably isn't related to imaging as we know it and possibly not related to anything else of note. It's probably a step up from building obsolete super computers though. Apparently though, someone stumbled on to a nice marketing gimick for Rice U.
Using movable mirrors to increase the resolution of an image to beyond that of the sensor(s) is nothing new. I think some of those schemes date back to the first days of TV experimentation. During the early days of CCDs, when linear CCDS could be produced flawlessly (sort of) and camera 2d arrays could not be produced without multiple dead pixels, some high end (specialized) cameras were made using rotating mirrors to acheive nice high resolution imaging.
The problem with multiplexing many image positions thru one sensor is that of time and sensitivity. At a given light level, there's only so many photons coming in per second. If one desires to create a 1000 x 1000 pixel image (not quite 1 megapixel) then the exposure time for the light level desired will be 1 million times longer than that of a CCD.
To think of this in concepts of computing, its a massive step backwards. The CCD 2d array is like parallel processing where processors are simultaneously handling each pixel. The 1 pixel with mirror array is like a single processor sequentially processing each pixel one at time. While one might argue that it's easier to make 1 processor super fast than a million fairly fast, the problem is moot because if the exposure time is shorter than the time it takes for a few photons to arrive, one will not see anything other than random noise.
Actually, by injecting random noise into the position of an image on a CCD array, one can come up with improved, subpixel resolution by using statistics on multiple images - referred to as stacking. But this isn't cutting edge research, it's applied now.
Weather forecasters can't get things right 2 days in advance, much less years in advance. Societal prognosticators have such poor grasp of economics in terms of human interaction and a lack of understanding of science and potential technology as to be right only by accident.
Of all the factors concerning the situation here on planet earth, its biomass (all things living), is insignificant on any time scale involving many thousands of years or more. What's more telling is that mankind and technology is not even #1 or # 2 in importance of short term impact. Hell, we're not even #3.
It is most telling of the egoes of some that they think we as a species are actually important in the scheme of things that happen on planet earth. It is also most telling that these think they know the 'way things should be' or more accurately, the way that they would like them to be.
10,000 yrs - the approximate age of some vestages of civilization is but an instant in time for climatic changes and not even that for the far greater forces that impact us in a big way. According to the records, most life on earth dies out every few tens of millions of years.
Perhaps the most often catastrophic events are comet/asteroid impacts. If you've ever looked at the dark night sky for a few hours, you'll probably see at least one meteor and on some nights, you might see several in a single minute. Those are dust, usually left over pieces of dust that populate comet orbits we pass through. There are tons of this cosmic debris entering the earths atmosphere every year. There are numerous occurances of much larger objects which reach the ground every year. Apparently, as often possibly as a few times a century (or millenia) there are some which are large enough to destroy our largest cities were it to hit one. On a less frequent basis, there are some that would destroy all or most all of life on earth.
Please note, every time you see a meteor shower that this occurs when the earth passes through the path of the comet that shed the dust. Imagine what might happen were the comet to be there when earth was passing through. The world witnessed a few years ago several fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy comet hitting Jupiter. The fragments were each creating impact blasts about the size of the earth.
With engineering, and enough warning time (several years), it would be possible to deflect one of these rocks (or snowballs) and avoid a collision. This is assuming moderate sized objects rather than the largest sized object thought to have hit the earth. Not even our technology could save us from that one. It seems that something the size of Mars came plowing through, smashing the earth to molton blobs - which is thought to be how the moon was created. "It is far easier to believe that something which happened once can happen again than it is to believe that something which has never happened before will happen" (paraphrased).
As for such large potential problems, not even our technology could save us and the little fishes, the cockroaches and bacteria. Nor can it save us from all potentially damaging events of much smaller scale, such as a super volcano erruption.
Also, the universe comes with unbelievably massive events that can destroy life on earth in an instant with no warning or perhaps even destroy earth totally, not just make it unihabitable for life. Our only saving grace (from a scientific standpoint) has been luck and the rather infrequent nature of such calamity.
It's not the sort of thing of science fiction because it makes for too depressing and boring a story as well as way too short. - It was a dark and stormy night as the GLAST satellite passed through the earth's shadow. Suddenly, out of the gloom its detectors started to pick up readings and the internal computer gave commands to swing the telescope around in the direction of the burst but the action never began because the motors were no longer there. It had also started to transmit the detection of another burst,
Awareness of the real loss of privacy along with the perceived loss of privacy have combined with other factors to make things worse.
In the clinton administration, when those illegally obtained 500 FBI files were discovered, those who are screaming the loudest now were silent. When Echelon became known then, how many protests and newspaper articles about invaision of freedoms occurred? When it got out that international phone calls were being monitored by voice recognition circuits keying tape recorders (initially rather crude ones) all the way back to the 1960s, who was complaining about that?
The simple fact is that even with technology, there is too much going on for the manpower available. Even at the height of the cold war, the FBI did not have enough counter intellegence agents to even monitor all of the suspected soviet agents (the ones here on visas from the USSR). Nevermind the Americans involved in spying for them.
To compare modern America with Nazis Germany in any equivalent way is to show one's total ignorance of both history and of the understanding of tyranny and its methods of operation. Germany had something like 60 million people at the start of WWII and possibly 6 to 10 million directly associated with internal intellegence, spying on others. Some historians have started to question whether this society was totally top down controlled or whether its power was bottom up - serious numbers of the German people supporting neighborhood spying because they were committed to it (and the power over others it brought them).
In any case, a tyranny like the Nazis one operates in a manner such that tolerance/compliance by the people is not enough. Active participation in the tyranny is required of all and failure to participate means that one must be an enemy of the regime. Despite this, it seems the German people were a bit enthusiastic in their compliance.
Considering that bush is the most maligned president in modern history, if not in all of our history, and most of it is pure falsification, it's very difficult to try to determine where some of these people are coming from with their claims of loss of freedom of protest. Mainstream opposition party rhetoric has been at such a screeching fever pitch as to clearly be giving aid and comfort to our enemies who are at war with us currently. Note this is the formal, legal definition of treason. Note that good ole Abe Lincoln tossed people - including politicians into jail for much less during the Civil War. Personally, I'd like to see Truth in Advertising laws applied to politics - the democrats would be leaderless (even mores so than they have been).
As for our current situation, we are half heartedly at war with a currently small difuse enemy that is totally dedicated. There are serious risks that it could escalate into a much larger one, still with a totally dedicated, but with neither diffuse nor small enemy. What's worse, our largest 'allies' are at best merely the enemy of our enemy and are hardly our friends nor do they really consider us as such.
Finally, what people consider privacy varies dramatically. I bet most of those complaining at present time actually prefer gun registration, if not confiscation. There's nothing like wasting law enforcement resources on noncriminals to create shopping lists for criminals and more opportunities for worthless bureaucrats to make an extra buck on the side.
Believe it or not, a right to privacy is not spelled out in the Constitution. There's a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures - probably one that has been damaged over the last few decades due to the war on drugs - but that is nothing new. The public takings have also been stretched - most recently by the supreme court - but not by those supremes who adhere to conservative philosophy. It was those pseudo civil libertarians of the left who did it and it is those who support their actions.
Seems like good old h2o vapor is the most significant green house 'gas' by far.
Of course since global warming is merely one of the latest leftist/socialist power grab political scams one must be extremely cautious of the 'reputable' sources and their 'research' since for them, truth is whatever promotes their agenda.
Since it's been hotter here and colder here - without benefit of man or man's technology, one must conclude that it will be colder and hotter again, regardless of whether man is present on earth or not.
According to those ice records, we're long overdue for the next ice age. Perhaps if the dustmite on the elephant's back is really controlling the direction of the elephant, maybe our continued pollution will forestall the pending ice age for a few more years or more likely, a few more minutes.
Meanwhile, maybe Terminex can save the day. Since we're not even number 2 as the combined biomass factor on planet earth (including our technology), maybe they can help reduce the odds a bit. Or maybe algor and friends can get bacteria to sign on to the kyoto accords to cut down on their environmental impact. From what I hear, they're worse than the termites in the overall scheme of things.
There's nothing like creating a major disaster to fend off future imagined problems, or even real pending ones. It's sorta like crushing your toe with a sledge hammer to distract you from a tooth ache. Actually, it's more like committing suicide to avoid the prospects of a possible future cancer.
Sorry, but the original poster and wiki are correct. For a non rotating black hole - the classical original one - The schwartzchild radius (event horizon) is a function of Mass and 1/r - size. It's linear while density is a function of mass and 1/r^3 (volume).
There are the assumptions that 1) the equations are accurate inside the radius and 2) that there is nothing left to stop the collapse from happening further - hence that there must be a singularity (single point) inside the event horizon. However, to the distant observer, time slows down for a body falling into the event horizon. Hence, a question occurs - does a black hole form during the lifetime of the universe (according the distant or relatively unaffected observer) or is it still in the process of forming. Another question is do the same laws of physics apply within the even horizon? Does it work without the point mass (singularity) but rather with a mean density? Finally, the question arises that since it's not a condition of high density, is it possible that the schwartzchild radius is an artifact or a problem of the mathematics?
In any case, it might not be a matter of luck that we are in an area without AGN or quasars. It might simply be that life couldn't exist very long in such an area. It's also possible (or even probably) that all supermassive black holes have 'feeding binges', perhaps even the puny multimillion solar mass critter in the milky way, but I doubt it takes that one to obliterate any prospects of life in our galazy. After all, andromeda has something 10x the size of ours - and it's headed our way eventually to merge and that could be a real humdinger.
Global warming can happen in an instant. One moment you're breathing air, the next breathing a vacuum, and the next you're just floating atoms in space, surrounded by all of the atoms of all the oceans of the earth. It doesnt make for a good movie - and there's no chance of a sequal.
I thought algor was a major investor in google. For him and most other leftists the definition of 'truth' is a bit different from the dictionary. For them, 'truth' is whatever promotes their agenda.
Then again, algor wouldn't recognize truth by any other definition.
What's oftimes missing in 'liberal' 'truth' is reality and context. And "19,000 repetitions make a 'truth'." (brave new world by huxley).
Considering that a substantial fraction of the populace is incapable of actually recognizing serious bias in the news as it exists now, it won't be hard to manipulate things even more.
And, rest assured, it won't be algor which gets the deffect tags.
Uh, time to get out of the crib and start learning something of economics for a change.
Also, if you think the US hasn't accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition - then you need to learn the actual meanings of those words as well as need to learn something of real economics.
The reason why we consume so much is because we produce so much. If someone does it more efficiently, well, try to get a job now at a typewriter manufacturing company. Hint - there aren't any left.
If you want to blame america for - whatever - then you'll need to go beyond black 'copters and in to the realm of the US created and funded communism and built the soviet union in order to freeze out competition. What other way could possibly keep vast amounts of natural resources and people from creating a vibrant economy?
As for the amount of trash we produce - what actually becomes 'pollution' versus what is taken care of by societal rules. Compare that to the ethiopian who has very little trash but all of it becomes pollution. Also, since ethiopia ceased being a food producing/exporting nation and turned into another socialist utopia of the starving, who do you think is feeding them too?
If you looked at the pop. growth, you should have noticed that it is occurring in the third world. It's only growing here in the US because of the massive invasion from the third world.
It seems that those Zero Population Growth pervs (or evidently former zpg )didn't comprehend much of anything - or were simply lying about it if they did. High average birth rates don't continue on as technology moves to the farm and infant death rates plummet in a society. The choice between a new kid and a new tv or a new car tend to limit the number of new kids.
There's plenty of things people don't like about the US. Demand for illegal drugs has created violence and death around the globe. The sewage from holy-wood purportedly depicting american life has offended many. Then, there is that plain old jealously that exists in many people no matter where they live.
But don't worry about it much. The US education system teaches self esteem and confidence about working math instead of how to work math. Hence, we're already down to something like 39th in industrialized societies for math education. I doubt I can blame some foreigners for their dislike of the undeserving as well as a dislike for those who don't know or appreciate what they've got.
quite frankly, I doubt that you would want to eat anything that went thru 10k g's. Talking about a major centrufuge effect.
Bull's dream was evidently space satellites. It seems their requirements were in the 10k g's to 100k g's arena - plausible for some electronics. Dropping a metal can transistor off the bench onto a concrete floor puts similar stresses on them and nowadays, most of them don't die from a fall off of a table top.
There are two facets getting an object in orbit. The easy one is lifting it up to orbital distance. The more energy intensive is getting that orbital velocity high enough to keep it out of the atmosphere.
While some sort of mass driver creature might make excellent sense for the airless low gravity moon - or better yet for small asteroid mining, every scientific facet possible in this behemoth is working against the end goal. It's a total brute force attempt to overcome the obsticles and appears to offer no benefits over alternatives.
Perhaps it is in reality, yet another example of gov. pork. In this case combined with the results of a severely damaged educational system. Gee, maybe algor invented this - instead of the internet. I wonder how many shares he owns of this company.
"what does it feel like to be sitting atop a million pounds of high explosives in the most sophisticated technology ever created by man, composed of a million parts - each provided by the low bidder?" - a fun question I used to like to ask astronauts on occaision.
What's new is a variety of things, desparation being significant. If you note, leftist subversives around the world have started to use this tactic as a standard, from the recent mexican election to the last australian election.
Another factor has been the fact that the gov. pig was very fat with plenty of pork for all - at least all of the washington crowd. With the exception of recipes for how to spend that pork and buy votes, there was fairly little difference in ideology and consequences of which party was in power and the dems who were in power for decades didn't mind sharing some of it with their pals on the other side of the isle.
As the leftists started to dominate the control of the democrat party, there started to become two much more distinct paths with radically different consequences as to who gets elected. Also, the fundamental tactic of accusing the opposition of what they were guilty of - first and loudest - started coming into vogue. It's a powerful tactic, making any response look very ineffectual and to appear to be merely an attempt to muddy the water, especially with the media firmly on the side of the left with rather few exceptions.
Dirty politics is nothing new. It doesn't require high technology to flourish, but rather, requires the dark shadows and lack of punishment and public outrage to survive. The darkest shadows are in the technology.
As for who is the worst offender, one merely only has to look at recent history and use one's mind to realize what's going on. Note that the media does not exhibit intellegence or competence, only bias - like dan rather's fake memo on bush's service, another laughable myth for fools. In Fl during the 2000 election, there were attempts to disenfranchise the overseas military vote - perceived to substantially republican. In various democrat controlled counties, there were substantial voting irregularities with many dimpled chads turning up along with a democrat operative in possession of a voting machine who was going from polling place to polling place. Note that dimpled chads tend to be caused by putting multiple ballots in a machine at one time.
Note that the reason the bush story is so laughable is that when george junior was in the guard, bush senior was just about the only elected republican in a solidly democrat controlled state, whose distaste of republicans dated back to post civil war reconstruction and carpet baggers. And while george junior grew up in TX, bush senior was virtually a modern carpet bagger from MA. Not only that, but the dems controlled TX and Washington DC totally at the time and didn't care about the notion of having competition.
Context is a bitch! When applied to politics it becomes devastating to leftists.
physics evolved from what was once called natural philosophy. You will notice an interesting correlation between western philosophy at particular times and the nature of our understanding of the world at that time.
Not all things scientific are directly testable. That doesn't mean they cannot be analyzed in a scientific manner with rather good results.
strings may someday provide some sort of results. At present, they have been sucking up far more resources than deserved.
to be a theory means it must make predictions - ultimately some predictions must be tested - or observed. It doesn't seem that string theory - after all the hype has been able to ever provide a prediction which could potentially be tested. Otherwise, it is an exercise in esoteric mathematics.
Smoke, elves and mirrors theories may actually give results, but ultimately, the full correct theory must not only give results but it also must provide the conceptual description, i.e., open up the understanding so it's no longer just a closed box with a crank on the side.
My bookie isn't taking bets on string theory ever doing that.
Perhaps the answer lies in a different direction, like learning of the ultimately small by further analysis of the inconceivably big.
Not science if you can't prove it? What a radical thought! Science today is based on the hypothesis - 'wouldn't it be nice if'
Beware of Algor the high priest of global warming. He and his followers will get you for that.
String theory or maybe it should be modified to become spring theory - give it that little longitudinal twang and add another coupla more dimensions - isn't alone. Evidently, the more exotic one makes their 'solution' - the better chance one has of getting more bucks for their 'research' and increasing their status (and possibly making more $$$$ in that book deal).
I guess that makes two types of new science. There is the politicized science - current best known example being manmade global warming and past all time best example being the eugenics of the earlier 20th century. Then there seems to be prostituted science. Not sure what the best examples of this are but perhaps exotic dark matter might take the cake for the current crop.
Yes the year 1984 has come and gone and most of you didn't even notice the similarities back then with the novel.
The one thing that has not transpired is the criticizing of the leaders. Bush has been criticized more, by more people than any other man history, and mostly, it's been unjustified.
However, seems like Brave New World was rather on the money (though significantly overestimated)concerning 17,000 repetitions making one truth.
(with 1 percent of the documentation translated) there are no wmds in iraq, hence there were never any wmds in iraq. Those kurds died of fright, not wmds. and when bush stated (accurately) that many intellegence agencies around the world believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, it's been "Bush lied people died" ever since. Care to do some repetitions here - push that 17,000 repetitions a bit more more, maybe for a new record?
What happened to all that yellow cake uranium powder sadam was supposedly collecting? Anyone catch the early tv news reports on the ground in iraq with looters in the background dumping it out in order to steal the barrels?
The future is always full of uncertainty and hence, unpredictability. Some big rock in space might change the plans of mice and men in toto without either ever noticing it was about to happen just as some lightning bolt or broken screw might change the plans of one or two.
Science fiction is the use of some bit of fantasy or unproven science to establish conditions for a story. Usually, this is for the establishment of some situation which would not otherwise exist. It's not about the science, it's about the story.
The fact that some events do happen and some do not usually create the possibility of partial accuracy in the prognostications but seldom create full accuracy. One thing that never changes is human nature, both the good and the bad.
well, back in 0'75 when telecomuting was more unknown than rj11 jacks, I was telecommuting via the darpa net to MIT, using a program that only existed there to solve a moderately nasty little problem and encountered an 11 yr old 'hacker' who 'dropped in' to chat one one day. He was using daddy's pdp 8? node to travel the DARPA net right into MIT's Mathlab computer (a PDP 10).
Rather than a rich kid, this was simply the son of some researcher or graduate student who apparently was permitted to amuse himself while hanging out at daddy's workplace.
It was a fun project overall, took a relatively long time since the 103 modem was mal-adjusted right outta the box and the blame tended to stay for quite some time on noise in the federal telephone system needed to call in to the DARPA net node.
Despite the best efforts of some ludites, we are not about out of fossil fuels. As usual, we are close to the limit of diminishing returns for exploring for more. It makes little sense at the top level to spend too much money hunting just to extend the amount of known reserves that won't be developed for 50 years. It is possible we are at or are nearing a time where we are out of cheap energy, at least for the moment.
One must understand the difference between a means of storage of energy and a source of energy. A gallon of gasoline is both. Disassociating water into hydrogen and oxygen requires energy so the hydrogen is merely a means of storage, not a source of energy. Solar, wind, river dams, fossil fuels, nuclear power are all sources of energy.
It is possible to convert energy from one form to another and one storage means to another. Any solution to a major problem must include efficient conversions and utilization of existing infrastructures to some extent. One of the biggest problems with storing energy is that of energy density, how much you can pack into a given size and weight - along with the relative safety of it. There is no truly totally safe way to store energy, all methods have their faults as well as their advantages.
Consequently, it will most assuredly make sense to convert energy into forms that can be used, transported, stored with existing means, such as diesel and gasoline.
If you tried to use a natural gas pipeline for transporting raw hydrogen - a natural assumption to make on the surface of it, you could encounter serious leaks where the hydrogen can escape wheras the larger molecules of natural gas do not. There could be effects where the metal or other materials in use might be degraded by the hydrogen to a much greater extent than by methane.
As for the carbon, it's there. Fossil fuels are called fossil fuels because of their origins. The carbon in these fuels was once in living things, ultimately they came from plants. Carbon atoms are neither created nor destroyed (ignoring insignificant nuclear chemistry activity) and plants get their carbon by processing carbon dioxide. Hence, all carbon in fossil fuels came from our atmosphere in the first place and will eventually return to the atmosphere, regardless of the presence of man and his technology.
It's the land of nuts fruits and flakes.
What pollution there is which is caused by autos, virtually all of it is caused by a very small number of rather old and poorly maintained mostly junkers. I once saw the calculations indicating that if they put up spot checkpoints around the state for these, confiscated them and gave the owners new cadillacs or lincolns in compensation, that the pollution rates would drop tremendously and the cost of implementation would be far less than their current ineffective means. Of course the problem is that those people who don't maintain their cars tend to not maintain their cars, hence, turning those new autos into junkers in short order.
gov. now for the most part is about creating new problems which need to be solved, not solving existing problems.
Actors for politicians are generally a bad idea. Reagan was rather unique in that he actually did very little acting long before and he was quite well versed, having developed his views from scratch rather than having been feed with the predigested sort you see prevelent among the modern holy-wood left of today.
I shudder to think of 'Conan the Republican' and his kennedy clan wife. He seems to have great ambitions and shallow roots.
Just remember, when you trust gov. to solve problems, those in charge are there only because they are experts in getting elected and not for their ability to solve problems. And for most of them, the more problems solved, the less they are needed. In other words, a solved problem is a lost opportunity.
Unlike the unlimited greed, ambition and power hunger in some lawyers, there's only so much energy in a gallon of gas and so much efficiency possible with a gas engine. Detroit cannot do what is not possible. They are pretty much at the point already where additional improvements can be had by reducing the weight (and the safety) of the vehicle.
The simple result of this shyster criminal is to make cars less affordable for all but the rich, put more working people out of jobs and inspire other whackos to enrich themselves at the expense of (rather than to the benefit of) society in general.
I have no idea of the fractions, but while there is an inelastic demand for gasoline, there is also an elastic demand - vacations, weekend outings etc. there is much less of an elastic demand for diesel than for gasoline since it is mostly for transporation of goods. One must also consider alternative products as well since there is a fairly inelastic demand for fuel oil in winter time that competes with diesel product.
Unfortunately, the nature of this energy is such that the entire economy depends upon it. Raise the price of gas and all prices rise. Unlike theater tickets and rap CDs, this price is not really elastic with regards to the overall economy. In other words, raise the price of oil and the value of the dollar (what it can buy) effectively devaluates, nullifying a bunch of that increase.
The market is such that oil/gas/diesel is a commodity with virtually no brand name premium price. - maybe a little with exxon and shell - but there is definitely no Evian (sp?) or Adams beer premium to be gleaned.
Another force on the price is alternative competition. Currently, it's being stiffled by low costs and by variability and instability. There will probably never be $10 / gal. gas (other than by taxation) because competing technologies will eliminate it as a viable source. Currently, there is possibly still oil being produced at $2- 5 / barrel like the saudis used to be able to do so that $12 price/barrel made it impractical to develop north sea oil that cost $35 / barrel at that time. Jerking their price up in the 70s started opening up areas like the north sea to the point where the costs apparently dropped even from there.
Once we reach the point where all oil will cost $35 / barrel and no one can sell it at a profit for $20, the stability in minimum pricing will permit the investments to be safely made for alternatives to oil that cost under $35 / barrel. Note the $35 is an example numberand could be any number - although there are no currently known cost effective alternatives for gas below $20 / barrel (and perhaps not under $40/).
As for fair price - I almost agree. There's still at least $0.35/ gallon in taxation which seems extortionate to me. I'm not sure how much more of that price is due to unnecessary overregulation which also makes it somewhat higher than it should be. But then, neither of these are the fault of the oil companies.
If you want to know where they got their profits, go get an annual report. It'd be interesting to know if they made it from gasoline or something else. After all, you should sink all of your money into that company if it's so profitable.
Also, it would be nice to know what % return on their value. Being the largest company in the world and not making the highest profit in the world would not be a good thing. It would be interesting to know what they consistantly made over the last 5 to 10 years, After all, my CD at the local bank made about 5.5% for the last 5 years. If invested in exxon instead, would I have made 5.5% every year on average? Would I have been better off to invest in Conoco, or CitiBank?, or Viacomm?
It seems you have a simple factoid devoid of any context and as such conveys no significant meaning. Without context, it's meaningless, even more so than those stupid congressional hearings that give face time for lying slimey politicians to grandstand and intimidate (usually to extract campaign donations), most of whom are not competent enough to run a 1 crew lawn care company.
There were probably no hearings because those pushing them probably realized they would not be able to fool enough new nitwitts or extract enough campaign donations to justify their efforts.
The new american crisis will be what will those incompetent jerks do when the majority of their electorates finally catch on to their scams?
Some people just do not comprehend the basics. If you knew as little of written english as you do about economics, you would not be able to distinguish the letters of the alphabet from sandscrit.
First off, the gov. gives no money to the oil companies, it siphons off billions from them. Tax breaks means they ain't going to steal even more money from them (or whomever a tax break applies).
Second, a corporation is a piece of paper, a ficticious person who is owned by someone (possibly ficticious) or more likely by many others. Corporations cannot pay taxes, they must pass on whatever taxes are charged to their customers. In other words, any taxes charged to an oil company are paid by you at the pump.
Ultimately, that $2 - $3 current pricing of gasoline will result in around 8 cents of profit to the corporation on average. The less efficiently run company will likely not make that much and the well run one might make a small amount more. For the privelege of persecuting that company, government(s) will reap about 40 cents to squander in ways that usually benefit no one other than the politicians. It seems that when that tax rate was less, they were able to construct a highway system for the public to benefit from. Now it seems they cannot keep those highways maintained with this new largess that comes from your pocket.
Third, your 'incentives' are all negatives. Prohibitions on drilling in the gulf, drilling off california, alaska. It is not possible to build a new refinery in the US that is cost effective. They're on the verge of requiring auto emissions to put out cleaner air that what gets drawn in to the engine to begin with, if it has not started to occur already.
Fourth, unlike the vast majority of the gov. sinkhole (or giant protection racket that puts the mafia to shame) oil companies produce something positive for our society. They provide energy for us to use to get food and materials to market as well as to produce items like food.
Maybe if you'd spend a few minutes reading Bastiat's The Law and Hazlett's Economics in One Lesson, you might even start to get an inkling of understanding of the environment in which you live. At present, it's obvious, you haven't a clue.
Your $6/gal. is all taxes, one of the benefits of living in a socialist utopia. Europe is vastly different from the US in size and population density. I used to work with a guy that commuted to work from Italy to Belgium via train. France is hardly 1/4th the size of Texas. At highway speeds it takes more than an 8 hour day to transit this state. As for population density, the county south of where I live has less than 500 people living there. There are countries in europe which are smaller.
There are relatively few places in this country which permit one to live one's life without the need of a car or other serious personal vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing like trying to buck nature to ruin one's day.
It's been hotter before and colder before. Either it's going to get hotter first or colder first and not even the entire resources of the human race can prevent it. It's only a matter of when, regardless of the existance of mankind. At most we might postpone (or negatively )bring on the event slightly sooner than it would otherwise occur if mankind didn't exist at all. Throwing away scarce resources to solve problems which cannot be verified to actually exist means those resources are no longer available for other purposes - like maybe solving solving real problems that crop up from time to time.
As for Chriton, he was trained as a medical doctor, not that a few years training necessarily has a life long impact on learning and expertise. While being a med. doctor doesn't mean one is a research scientist, it does provide a great deal of foundation for being a very good one. Having read the appendices in his book, I found myself quite exhausted and if chriton actually read and studied all of those, he is probably more knowledgeable than a moderately competent climatic scientist and far more so than those cocktail swizzling gov. cling-on groupie types one sees being interviewed on the discovery channel.
Chriton's appendix on politicized science is quite a well done presentation that communicates some of the problem with the modern scientific community and the prostitution of science. As for peer reviewed assurances of quality - that's total BS. That old gal Ayn Rand explored the nature of perverting such systems in her early novels. Funny how she was referring to the same leftist subversive types that seem to be in control of the debate now. Newton's Principia was not peer reviewed nor would it have seen the light of publication had there been such a system. Nevermind the really controversial topics of Renaisance era cosmology.
As for the results of politicized science, it cannot be trusted as even the very raw data is likely to be faked in order to achieve the desired political agenda. It's not merely the matter of selective funding and the competition of getting funding that distorts it. It's not actually science as it merely holds the trappings of such.
What do you expect from a divinity school flunk-out? If algor junior wasn't the son of a racist democrat senator, didn't fit the leftist model and didn't look like a graduate of the Troy McNamara school of plastic surgery, he'd be a hair stylist at the local strip mall in Chatahoochi. (assuming he hadn't joined Jim Jones in Guyana).
There will be successful investments and opportunities in space. Probably far fewer will succeed than will fail. Figuring out which will be which is not something algor is capable of doing. Of course, mining operations on the moon investments apparently existed long before the possibility of getting there included a real approach.
As usual, some of the posts above show an absence of knowledge and understanding about even the most fundamental basics of economics. For those posters - I suggest quickly go invest in air-america.
That and eye separation etc - a much more difficult problem to overcome. However, anyone willing to wear a mask and view with only 1 eye while hiding the other could succeed in fooling even that. I guess people who believe in and promote biometrics are dealing with such complex issues as to make thinking outside the box extremely difficult. Those desiring to fool biometrics apparently don't have nearly that sort of difficulty, typically constrained by morality more than by other constraints.
Need a finger print for scanning? One can go to great lengths to acquire a sample and fabricate an immitation that might work. Or, one can simply take the finger - either with or without the rest of the person and it's going to work.
Visual biometrics is like many other sets of similar thing such as creating text fonts versus character recognition or voice recognition versus a speech synthesizer. Video graphics is far easier than the video recognition. They are paired but they do not have a reciprocity in the complexity. What's worse is that the recognition/comparision complexity is subject to far more innaccuracies and to being fooled.
Until someone can fabricate human (or close to human) level intellegence in the artifical realm, don't expect biometrics to carry out much. Of course, if one gets to that level, will it be possible to fabricate an artificial being that will perform its duty honestly or even to continue to function with the realization that it is artificial. How would you like being forced to be a stationary object stuck on the side of a wall in an airport with nothing to do but look at faces of travelers
coming and going to all the exotic places of the world?
Considering such jobs now done by people (who actually might have a life too) require a great deal of training, it's doubtful that there will ever be enough of them to adaquately handle the small fraction those in society refusing to abide by society's basic rules or even seeking to destroy society, it's rather hard to imagine enough of them to deal with the much greater number of the relatively normal too. Of course, there are much better low tech ways to deal with them - such as the mandatory participation used by most if not all tyrannies during modern times. After all, when everyone participates in ratting out their friends and family, including reporting the participation (or lack there of) of others, it becomes a web from where there isn't escape.
One must experience Rice to gain intuition on it but suffice to say it might be cutting edge at something but it probably isn't related to imaging as we know it and possibly not related to anything else of note. It's probably a step up from building obsolete super computers though. Apparently though, someone stumbled on to a nice marketing gimick for Rice U.
Using movable mirrors to increase the resolution of an image to beyond that of the sensor(s) is nothing new. I think some of those schemes date back to the first days of TV experimentation. During the early days of CCDs, when linear CCDS could be produced flawlessly (sort of) and camera 2d arrays could not be produced without multiple dead pixels, some high end (specialized) cameras were made using rotating mirrors to acheive nice high resolution imaging.
The problem with multiplexing many image positions thru one sensor is that of time and sensitivity. At a given light level, there's only so many photons coming in per second. If one desires to create a 1000 x 1000 pixel image (not quite 1 megapixel) then the exposure time for the light level desired will be 1 million times longer than that of a CCD.
To think of this in concepts of computing, its a massive step backwards. The CCD 2d array is like parallel processing where processors are simultaneously handling each pixel. The 1 pixel with mirror array is like a single processor sequentially processing each pixel one at time. While one might argue that it's easier to make 1 processor super fast than a million fairly fast, the problem is moot because if the exposure time is shorter than the time it takes for a few photons to arrive, one will not see anything other than random noise.
Actually, by injecting random noise into the position of an image on a CCD array, one can come up with improved, subpixel resolution by using statistics on multiple images - referred to as stacking. But this isn't cutting edge research, it's applied now.
Weather forecasters can't get things right 2 days in advance, much less years in advance. Societal prognosticators have such poor grasp of economics in terms of human interaction and a lack of understanding of science and potential technology as to be right only by accident.
Of all the factors concerning the situation here on planet earth, its biomass (all things living), is insignificant on any time scale involving many thousands of years or more. What's more telling is that mankind and technology is not even #1 or # 2 in importance of short term impact. Hell, we're not even #3.
It is most telling of the egoes of some that they think we as a species are actually important in the scheme of things that happen on planet earth. It is also most telling that these think they know the 'way things should be' or more accurately, the way that they would like them to be.
10,000 yrs - the approximate age of some vestages of civilization is but an instant in time for climatic changes and not even that for the far greater forces that impact us in a big way. According to the records, most life on earth dies out every few tens of millions of years.
Perhaps the most often catastrophic events are comet/asteroid impacts. If you've ever looked at the dark night sky for a few hours, you'll probably see at least one meteor and on some nights, you might see several in a single minute. Those are dust, usually left over pieces of dust that populate comet orbits we pass through. There are tons of this cosmic debris entering the earths atmosphere every year. There are numerous occurances of much larger objects which reach the ground every year. Apparently, as often possibly as a few times a century (or millenia) there are some which are large enough to destroy our largest cities were it to hit one. On a less frequent basis, there are some that would destroy all or most all of life on earth.
Please note, every time you see a meteor shower that this occurs when the earth passes through the path of the comet that shed the dust. Imagine what might happen were the comet to be there when earth was passing through. The world witnessed a few years ago several fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy comet hitting Jupiter. The fragments were each creating impact blasts about the size of the earth.
With engineering, and enough warning time (several years), it would be possible to deflect one of these rocks (or snowballs) and avoid a collision. This is assuming moderate sized objects rather than the largest sized object thought to have hit the earth. Not even our technology could save us from that one. It seems that something the size of Mars came plowing through, smashing the earth to molton blobs - which is thought to be how the moon was created. "It is far easier to believe that something which happened once can happen again than it is to believe that something which has never happened before will happen" (paraphrased).
As for such large potential problems, not even our technology could save us and the little fishes, the cockroaches and bacteria. Nor can it save us from all potentially damaging events of much smaller scale, such as a super volcano erruption.
Also, the universe comes with unbelievably massive events that can destroy life on earth in an instant with no warning or perhaps even destroy earth totally, not just make it unihabitable for life. Our only saving grace (from a scientific standpoint) has been luck and the rather infrequent nature of such calamity.
It's not the sort of thing of science fiction because it makes for too depressing and boring a story as well as way too short. - It was a dark and stormy night as the GLAST satellite passed through the earth's shadow. Suddenly, out of the gloom its detectors started to pick up readings and the internal computer gave commands to swing the telescope around in the direction of the burst but the action never began because the motors were no longer there. It had also started to transmit the detection of another burst,
Awareness of the real loss of privacy along with the perceived loss of privacy have combined with other factors to make things worse. In the clinton administration, when those illegally obtained 500 FBI files were discovered, those who are screaming the loudest now were silent. When Echelon became known then, how many protests and newspaper articles about invaision of freedoms occurred? When it got out that international phone calls were being monitored by voice recognition circuits keying tape recorders (initially rather crude ones) all the way back to the 1960s, who was complaining about that? The simple fact is that even with technology, there is too much going on for the manpower available. Even at the height of the cold war, the FBI did not have enough counter intellegence agents to even monitor all of the suspected soviet agents (the ones here on visas from the USSR). Nevermind the Americans involved in spying for them. To compare modern America with Nazis Germany in any equivalent way is to show one's total ignorance of both history and of the understanding of tyranny and its methods of operation. Germany had something like 60 million people at the start of WWII and possibly 6 to 10 million directly associated with internal intellegence, spying on others. Some historians have started to question whether this society was totally top down controlled or whether its power was bottom up - serious numbers of the German people supporting neighborhood spying because they were committed to it (and the power over others it brought them). In any case, a tyranny like the Nazis one operates in a manner such that tolerance/compliance by the people is not enough. Active participation in the tyranny is required of all and failure to participate means that one must be an enemy of the regime. Despite this, it seems the German people were a bit enthusiastic in their compliance. Considering that bush is the most maligned president in modern history, if not in all of our history, and most of it is pure falsification, it's very difficult to try to determine where some of these people are coming from with their claims of loss of freedom of protest. Mainstream opposition party rhetoric has been at such a screeching fever pitch as to clearly be giving aid and comfort to our enemies who are at war with us currently. Note this is the formal, legal definition of treason. Note that good ole Abe Lincoln tossed people - including politicians into jail for much less during the Civil War. Personally, I'd like to see Truth in Advertising laws applied to politics - the democrats would be leaderless (even mores so than they have been). As for our current situation, we are half heartedly at war with a currently small difuse enemy that is totally dedicated. There are serious risks that it could escalate into a much larger one, still with a totally dedicated, but with neither diffuse nor small enemy. What's worse, our largest 'allies' are at best merely the enemy of our enemy and are hardly our friends nor do they really consider us as such. Finally, what people consider privacy varies dramatically. I bet most of those complaining at present time actually prefer gun registration, if not confiscation. There's nothing like wasting law enforcement resources on noncriminals to create shopping lists for criminals and more opportunities for worthless bureaucrats to make an extra buck on the side. Believe it or not, a right to privacy is not spelled out in the Constitution. There's a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures - probably one that has been damaged over the last few decades due to the war on drugs - but that is nothing new. The public takings have also been stretched - most recently by the supreme court - but not by those supremes who adhere to conservative philosophy. It was those pseudo civil libertarians of the left who did it and it is those who support their actions.
Seems like good old h2o vapor is the most significant green house 'gas' by far.
Of course since global warming is merely one of the latest leftist/socialist power grab political scams one must be extremely cautious of the 'reputable' sources and their 'research' since for them, truth is whatever promotes their agenda.
Since it's been hotter here and colder here - without benefit of man or man's technology, one must conclude that it will be colder and hotter again, regardless of whether man is present on earth or not.
According to those ice records, we're long overdue for the next ice age. Perhaps if the dustmite on the elephant's back is really controlling the direction of the elephant, maybe our continued pollution will forestall the pending ice age for a few more years or more likely, a few more minutes.
Meanwhile, maybe Terminex can save the day. Since we're not even number 2 as the combined biomass factor on planet earth (including our technology), maybe they can help reduce the odds a bit. Or maybe algor and friends can get bacteria to sign on to the kyoto accords to cut down on their environmental impact. From what I hear, they're worse than the termites in the overall scheme of things.
There's nothing like creating a major disaster to fend off future imagined problems, or even real pending ones. It's sorta like crushing your toe with a sledge hammer to distract you from a tooth ache. Actually, it's more like committing suicide to avoid the prospects of a possible future cancer.
Solar power causes global warming.
Sorry, but the original poster and wiki are correct. For a non rotating black hole - the classical original one - The schwartzchild radius (event horizon) is a function of Mass and 1/r - size. It's linear while density is a function of mass and 1/r^3 (volume).
There are the assumptions that 1) the equations are accurate inside the radius and 2) that there is nothing left to stop the collapse from happening further - hence that there must be a singularity (single point) inside the event horizon. However, to the distant observer, time slows down for a body falling into the event horizon. Hence, a question occurs - does a black hole form during the lifetime of the universe (according the distant or relatively unaffected observer) or is it still in the process of forming. Another question is do the same laws of physics apply within the even horizon? Does it work without the point mass (singularity) but rather with a mean density? Finally, the question arises that since it's not a condition of high density, is it possible that the schwartzchild radius is an artifact or a problem of the mathematics?
In any case, it might not be a matter of luck that we are in an area without AGN or quasars. It might simply be that life couldn't exist very long in such an area. It's also possible (or even probably) that all supermassive black holes have 'feeding binges', perhaps even the puny multimillion solar mass critter in the milky way, but I doubt it takes that one to obliterate any prospects of life in our galazy. After all, andromeda has something 10x the size of ours - and it's headed our way eventually to merge and that could be a real humdinger.
Global warming can happen in an instant. One moment you're breathing air, the next breathing a vacuum, and the next you're just floating atoms in space, surrounded by all of the atoms of all the oceans of the earth. It doesnt make for a good movie - and there's no chance of a sequal.
FUNNY,
I thought algor was a major investor in google. For him and most other leftists the definition of 'truth' is a bit different from the dictionary. For them, 'truth' is whatever promotes their agenda.
Then again, algor wouldn't recognize truth by any other definition.
What's oftimes missing in 'liberal' 'truth' is reality and context. And "19,000 repetitions make a 'truth'." (brave new world by huxley).
Considering that a substantial fraction of the populace is incapable of actually recognizing serious bias in the news as it exists now, it won't be hard to manipulate things even more.
And, rest assured, it won't be algor which gets the deffect tags.
Uh, time to get out of the crib and start learning something of economics for a change.
Also, if you think the US hasn't accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition - then you need to learn the actual meanings of those words as well as need to learn something of real economics.
The reason why we consume so much is because we produce so much. If someone does it more efficiently, well, try to get a job now at a typewriter manufacturing company. Hint - there aren't any left.
If you want to blame america for - whatever - then you'll need to go beyond black 'copters and in to the realm of the US created and funded communism and built the soviet union in order to freeze out competition. What other way could possibly keep vast amounts of natural resources and people from creating a vibrant economy?
As for the amount of trash we produce - what actually becomes 'pollution' versus what is taken care of by societal rules. Compare that to the ethiopian who has very little trash but all of it becomes pollution. Also, since ethiopia ceased being a food producing/exporting nation and turned into another socialist utopia of the starving, who do you think is feeding them too?
If you looked at the pop. growth, you should have noticed that it is occurring in the third world. It's only growing here in the US because of the massive invasion from the third world.
It seems that those Zero Population Growth pervs (or evidently former zpg )didn't comprehend much of anything - or were simply lying about it if they did. High average birth rates don't continue on as technology moves to the farm and infant death rates plummet in a society. The choice between a new kid and a new tv or a new car tend to limit the number of new kids.
There's plenty of things people don't like about the US. Demand for illegal drugs has created violence and death around the globe. The sewage from holy-wood purportedly depicting american life has offended many. Then, there is that plain old jealously that exists in many people no matter where they live.
But don't worry about it much. The US education system teaches self esteem and confidence about working math instead of how to work math. Hence, we're already down to something like 39th in industrialized societies for math education. I doubt I can blame some foreigners for their dislike of the undeserving as well as a dislike for those who don't know or appreciate what they've got.
quite frankly, I doubt that you would want to eat anything that went thru 10k g's. Talking about a major centrufuge effect.
Bull's dream was evidently space satellites. It seems their requirements were in the 10k g's to 100k g's arena - plausible for some electronics. Dropping a metal can transistor off the bench onto a concrete floor puts similar stresses on them and nowadays, most of them don't die from a fall off of a table top.
There are two facets getting an object in orbit. The easy one is lifting it up to orbital distance. The more energy intensive is getting that orbital velocity high enough to keep it out of the atmosphere.
While some sort of mass driver creature might make excellent sense for the airless low gravity moon - or better yet for small asteroid mining, every scientific facet possible in this behemoth is working against the end goal. It's a total brute force attempt to overcome the obsticles and appears to offer no benefits over alternatives.
Perhaps it is in reality, yet another example of gov. pork. In this case combined with the results of a severely damaged educational system. Gee, maybe algor invented this - instead of the internet. I wonder how many shares he owns of this company.
"what does it feel like to be sitting atop a million pounds of high explosives in the most sophisticated technology ever created by man, composed of a million parts - each provided by the low bidder?" - a fun question I used to like to ask astronauts on occaision.
What's new is a variety of things, desparation being significant. If you note, leftist subversives around the world have started to use this tactic as a standard, from the recent mexican election to the last australian election.
Another factor has been the fact that the gov. pig was very fat with plenty of pork for all - at least all of the washington crowd. With the exception of recipes for how to spend that pork and buy votes, there was fairly little difference in ideology and consequences of which party was in power and the dems who were in power for decades didn't mind sharing some of it with their pals on the other side of the isle.
As the leftists started to dominate the control of the democrat party, there started to become two much more distinct paths with radically different consequences as to who gets elected. Also, the fundamental tactic of accusing the opposition of what they were guilty of - first and loudest - started coming into vogue. It's a powerful tactic, making any response look very ineffectual and to appear to be merely an attempt to muddy the water, especially with the media firmly on the side of the left with rather few exceptions.
Dirty politics is nothing new. It doesn't require high technology to flourish, but rather, requires the dark shadows and lack of punishment and public outrage to survive. The darkest shadows are in the technology.
As for who is the worst offender, one merely only has to look at recent history and use one's mind to realize what's going on. Note that the media does not exhibit intellegence or competence, only bias - like dan rather's fake memo on bush's service, another laughable myth for fools. In Fl during the 2000 election, there were attempts to disenfranchise the overseas military vote - perceived to substantially republican. In various democrat controlled counties, there were substantial voting irregularities with many dimpled chads turning up along with a democrat operative in possession of a voting machine who was going from polling place to polling place. Note that dimpled chads tend to be caused by putting multiple ballots in a machine at one time.
Note that the reason the bush story is so laughable is that when george junior was in the guard, bush senior was just about the only elected republican in a solidly democrat controlled state, whose distaste of republicans dated back to post civil war reconstruction and carpet baggers. And while george junior grew up in TX, bush senior was virtually a modern carpet bagger from MA. Not only that, but the dems controlled TX and Washington DC totally at the time and didn't care about the notion of having competition.
Context is a bitch! When applied to politics it becomes devastating to leftists.
physics evolved from what was once called natural philosophy. You will notice an interesting correlation between western philosophy at particular times and the nature of our understanding of the world at that time.
Not all things scientific are directly testable. That doesn't mean they cannot be analyzed in a scientific manner with rather good results.
strings may someday provide some sort of results. At present, they have been sucking up far more resources than deserved.
to be a theory means it must make predictions - ultimately some predictions must be tested - or observed. It doesn't seem that string theory - after all the hype has been able to ever provide a prediction which could potentially be tested. Otherwise, it is an exercise in esoteric mathematics.
Smoke, elves and mirrors theories may actually give results, but ultimately, the full correct theory must not only give results but it also must provide the conceptual description, i.e., open up the understanding so it's no longer just a closed box with a crank on the side.
My bookie isn't taking bets on string theory ever doing that.
Perhaps the answer lies in a different direction, like learning of the ultimately small by further analysis of the inconceivably big.
Not science if you can't prove it? What a radical thought! Science today is based on the hypothesis - 'wouldn't it be nice if'
Beware of Algor the high priest of global warming. He and his followers will get you for that.
String theory or maybe it should be modified to become spring theory - give it that little longitudinal twang and add another coupla more dimensions - isn't alone. Evidently, the more exotic one makes their 'solution' - the better chance one has of getting more bucks for their 'research' and increasing their status (and possibly making more $$$$ in that book deal).
I guess that makes two types of new science. There is the politicized science - current best known example being manmade global warming and past all time best example being the eugenics of the earlier 20th century. Then there seems to be prostituted science. Not sure what the best examples of this are but perhaps exotic dark matter might take the cake for the current crop.
Yes the year 1984 has come and gone and most of you didn't even notice the similarities back then with the novel.
The one thing that has not transpired is the criticizing of the leaders. Bush has been criticized more, by more people than any other man history, and mostly, it's been unjustified.
However, seems like Brave New World was rather on the money (though significantly overestimated)concerning 17,000 repetitions making one truth.
(with 1 percent of the documentation translated) there are no wmds in iraq, hence there were never any wmds in iraq. Those kurds died of fright, not wmds. and when bush stated (accurately) that many intellegence agencies around the world believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, it's been "Bush lied people died" ever since. Care to do some repetitions here - push that 17,000 repetitions a bit more more, maybe for a new record?
What happened to all that yellow cake uranium powder sadam was supposedly collecting? Anyone catch the early tv news reports on the ground in iraq with looters in the background dumping it out in order to steal the barrels?
The future is always full of uncertainty and hence, unpredictability. Some big rock in space might change the plans of mice and men in toto without either ever noticing it was about to happen just as some lightning bolt or broken screw might change the plans of one or two.
Science fiction is the use of some bit of fantasy or unproven science to establish conditions for a story. Usually, this is for the establishment of some situation which would not otherwise exist. It's not about the science, it's about the story.
The fact that some events do happen and some do not usually create the possibility of partial accuracy in the prognostications but seldom create full accuracy. One thing that never changes is human nature, both the good and the bad.
well, back in 0'75 when telecomuting was more unknown than rj11 jacks, I was telecommuting via the darpa net to MIT, using a program that only existed there to solve a moderately nasty little problem and encountered an 11 yr old 'hacker' who 'dropped in' to chat one one day. He was using daddy's pdp 8? node to travel the DARPA net right into MIT's Mathlab computer (a PDP 10).
Rather than a rich kid, this was simply the son of some researcher or graduate student who apparently was permitted to amuse himself while hanging out at daddy's workplace.
It was a fun project overall, took a relatively long time since the 103 modem was mal-adjusted right outta the box and the blame tended to stay for quite some time on noise in the federal telephone system needed to call in to the DARPA net node.
Despite the best efforts of some ludites, we are not about out of fossil fuels. As usual, we are close to the limit of diminishing returns for exploring for more. It makes little sense at the top level to spend too much money hunting just to extend the amount of known reserves that won't be developed for 50 years. It is possible we are at or are nearing a time where we are out of cheap energy, at least for the moment.
One must understand the difference between a means of storage of energy and a source of energy. A gallon of gasoline is both. Disassociating water into hydrogen and oxygen requires energy so the hydrogen is merely a means of storage, not a source of energy. Solar, wind, river dams, fossil fuels, nuclear power are all sources of energy.
It is possible to convert energy from one form to another and one storage means to another. Any solution to a major problem must include efficient conversions and utilization of existing infrastructures to some extent. One of the biggest problems with storing energy is that of energy density, how much you can pack into a given size and weight - along with the relative safety of it. There is no truly totally safe way to store energy, all methods have their faults as well as their advantages.
Consequently, it will most assuredly make sense to convert energy into forms that can be used, transported, stored with existing means, such as diesel and gasoline.
If you tried to use a natural gas pipeline for transporting raw hydrogen - a natural assumption to make on the surface of it, you could encounter serious leaks where the hydrogen can escape wheras the larger molecules of natural gas do not. There could be effects where the metal or other materials in use might be degraded by the hydrogen to a much greater extent than by methane.
As for the carbon, it's there. Fossil fuels are called fossil fuels because of their origins. The carbon in these fuels was once in living things, ultimately they came from plants. Carbon atoms are neither created nor destroyed (ignoring insignificant nuclear chemistry activity) and plants get their carbon by processing carbon dioxide. Hence, all carbon in fossil fuels came from our atmosphere in the first place and will eventually return to the atmosphere, regardless of the presence of man and his technology.
It's the land of nuts fruits and flakes. What pollution there is which is caused by autos, virtually all of it is caused by a very small number of rather old and poorly maintained mostly junkers. I once saw the calculations indicating that if they put up spot checkpoints around the state for these, confiscated them and gave the owners new cadillacs or lincolns in compensation, that the pollution rates would drop tremendously and the cost of implementation would be far less than their current ineffective means. Of course the problem is that those people who don't maintain their cars tend to not maintain their cars, hence, turning those new autos into junkers in short order. gov. now for the most part is about creating new problems which need to be solved, not solving existing problems.
Actors for politicians are generally a bad idea. Reagan was rather unique in that he actually did very little acting long before and he was quite well versed, having developed his views from scratch rather than having been feed with the predigested sort you see prevelent among the modern holy-wood left of today.
I shudder to think of 'Conan the Republican' and his kennedy clan wife. He seems to have great ambitions and shallow roots.
Just remember, when you trust gov. to solve problems, those in charge are there only because they are experts in getting elected and not for their ability to solve problems. And for most of them, the more problems solved, the less they are needed. In other words, a solved problem is a lost opportunity.
Unlike the unlimited greed, ambition and power hunger in some lawyers, there's only so much energy in a gallon of gas and so much efficiency possible with a gas engine. Detroit cannot do what is not possible. They are pretty much at the point already where additional improvements can be had by reducing the weight (and the safety) of the vehicle.
The simple result of this shyster criminal is to make cars less affordable for all but the rich, put more working people out of jobs and inspire other whackos to enrich themselves at the expense of (rather than to the benefit of) society in general.
I have no idea of the fractions, but while there is an inelastic demand for gasoline, there is also an elastic demand - vacations, weekend outings etc. there is much less of an elastic demand for diesel than for gasoline since it is mostly for transporation of goods. One must also consider alternative products as well since there is a fairly inelastic demand for fuel oil in winter time that competes with diesel product. Unfortunately, the nature of this energy is such that the entire economy depends upon it. Raise the price of gas and all prices rise. Unlike theater tickets and rap CDs, this price is not really elastic with regards to the overall economy. In other words, raise the price of oil and the value of the dollar (what it can buy) effectively devaluates, nullifying a bunch of that increase. The market is such that oil/gas/diesel is a commodity with virtually no brand name premium price. - maybe a little with exxon and shell - but there is definitely no Evian (sp?) or Adams beer premium to be gleaned. Another force on the price is alternative competition. Currently, it's being stiffled by low costs and by variability and instability. There will probably never be $10 / gal. gas (other than by taxation) because competing technologies will eliminate it as a viable source. Currently, there is possibly still oil being produced at $2- 5 / barrel like the saudis used to be able to do so that $12 price /barrel made it impractical to develop north sea oil that cost $35 / barrel at that time. Jerking their price up in the 70s started opening up areas like the north sea to the point where the costs apparently dropped even from there.
Once we reach the point where all oil will cost $35 / barrel and no one can sell it at a profit for $20, the stability in minimum pricing will permit the investments to be safely made for alternatives to oil that cost under $35 / barrel. Note the $35 is an example numberand could be any number - although there are no currently known cost effective alternatives for gas below $20 / barrel (and perhaps not under $40/).
As for fair price - I almost agree. There's still at least $0.35/ gallon in taxation which seems extortionate to me. I'm not sure how much more of that price is due to unnecessary overregulation which also makes it somewhat higher than it should be. But then, neither of these are the fault of the oil companies.
If you want to know where they got their profits, go get an annual report. It'd be interesting to know if they made it from gasoline or something else. After all, you should sink all of your money into that company if it's so profitable.
Also, it would be nice to know what % return on their value. Being the largest company in the world and not making the highest profit in the world would not be a good thing. It would be interesting to know what they consistantly made over the last 5 to 10 years, After all, my CD at the local bank made about 5.5% for the last 5 years. If invested in exxon instead, would I have made 5.5% every year on average? Would I have been better off to invest in Conoco, or CitiBank?, or Viacomm?
It seems you have a simple factoid devoid of any context and as such conveys no significant meaning. Without context, it's meaningless, even more so than those stupid congressional hearings that give face time for lying slimey politicians to grandstand and intimidate (usually to extract campaign donations), most of whom are not competent enough to run a 1 crew lawn care company.
There were probably no hearings because those pushing them probably realized they would not be able to fool enough new nitwitts or extract enough campaign donations to justify their efforts.
The new american crisis will be what will those incompetent jerks do when the majority of their electorates finally catch on to their scams?
Get some context!
Some people just do not comprehend the basics. If you knew as little of written english as you do about economics, you would not be able to distinguish the letters of the alphabet from sandscrit.
First off, the gov. gives no money to the oil companies, it siphons off billions from them. Tax breaks means they ain't going to steal even more money from them (or whomever a tax break applies).
Second, a corporation is a piece of paper, a ficticious person who is owned by someone (possibly ficticious) or more likely by many others. Corporations cannot pay taxes, they must pass on whatever taxes are charged to their customers. In other words, any taxes charged to an oil company are paid by you at the pump.
Ultimately, that $2 - $3 current pricing of gasoline will result in around 8 cents of profit to the corporation on average. The less efficiently run company will likely not make that much and the well run one might make a small amount more. For the privelege of persecuting that company, government(s) will reap about 40 cents to squander in ways that usually benefit no one other than the politicians. It seems that when that tax rate was less, they were able to construct a highway system for the public to benefit from. Now it seems they cannot keep those highways maintained with this new largess that comes from your pocket.
Third, your 'incentives' are all negatives. Prohibitions on drilling in the gulf, drilling off california, alaska. It is not possible to build a new refinery in the US that is cost effective. They're on the verge of requiring auto emissions to put out cleaner air that what gets drawn in to the engine to begin with, if it has not started to occur already.
Fourth, unlike the vast majority of the gov. sinkhole (or giant protection racket that puts the mafia to shame) oil companies produce something positive for our society. They provide energy for us to use to get food and materials to market as well as to produce items like food.
Maybe if you'd spend a few minutes reading Bastiat's The Law and Hazlett's Economics in One Lesson, you might even start to get an inkling of understanding of the environment in which you live. At present, it's obvious, you haven't a clue.
Your $6/gal. is all taxes, one of the benefits of living in a socialist utopia. Europe is vastly different from the US in size and population density. I used to work with a guy that commuted to work from Italy to Belgium via train. France is hardly 1/4th the size of Texas. At highway speeds it takes more than an 8 hour day to transit this state. As for population density, the county south of where I live has less than 500 people living there. There are countries in europe which are smaller.
There are relatively few places in this country which permit one to live one's life without the need of a car or other serious personal vehicle.