Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Truth About Fracking
Uploaded by ReasonTV on Jun 27, 2011
h/t Free Republic and Maggie's Notebook
The Administration is attempting a land grab into to stop this practice, which is harmless. It is the one true way that can lead to energy independence, which is not what the environmentalists have in mind.
h/t Free Republic and Maggie's Notebook
The Administration is attempting a land grab into to stop this practice, which is harmless. It is the one true way that can lead to energy independence, which is not what the environmentalists have in mind.
Mysterious "UFO" Footage Near Mercury Debunked
DailyTech
quote:
Comment:
There was this co worker once who asked me if I believe in UFO's. It wasn't the question, but the way it was asked. The question was asked as if I had any doubts about UFO"s, as if UFO's are established facts. I said "no", I don't believe in extra terrestrial visitors, because it doesn't make sense for them not to make their presence known.
Even if there was anything like that, what could you do about it?
quote:
According to NRL's Russ Howard, head scientist, and Nathan Rich, lead ground systems engineer, the mystery UFO is actually Mercury itself. It is simply a ghost of where Mercury was positioned the previous day, and was visible due to the way raw HI-1 telescope data is processed.
Comment:
There was this co worker once who asked me if I believe in UFO's. It wasn't the question, but the way it was asked. The question was asked as if I had any doubts about UFO"s, as if UFO's are established facts. I said "no", I don't believe in extra terrestrial visitors, because it doesn't make sense for them not to make their presence known.
Even if there was anything like that, what could you do about it?
Oikophobia
James Taranto brought up a term that I hadn't heard of until fairly recently:
Oikophobia was a theme in the Bill Whittle video I linked to in the post Mordor?. I can follow Whittle's reasoning most of the way, but I stopped short of going the whole route by calling ones opponents evil. That represents falling into sort of a trap, I argued.
I have been offering a different thought, which I refer to as "Houston, We have a Solution". For instance, if the left says we have a problem with using fossil fuels, I say, let's figure out a better way. If you are inclined to say that there is no better way, well, maybe you could just be wrong. My proposal is not to engage in the argument over who is right or wrong, but find a common purpose and work from there. The common purpose is that we need to stop importing so much oil from unfriendly parts of the world. We also need to improve our trade balance and produce new jobs and new wealth. Why not do that by conquering space and perfecting fusion energy?
The left wants to impose new costs and burdens on us all. But is this really necessary? What if you could produce energy that is clean and affordable at the same time? That's the promise of fusion energy, advocated by Polywell Fusion and Focus Fusion. It is also the promise of space solar energy. Each of these are not economical at this time, but maybe we are a lot closer to that than most people seem to think.
Maybe the dragons that need to be slain are in own minds. Oikophobia posits that, but it also points the blame to someone else. Perhaps you could find it by looking in the mirror, since it could be that you are seeing the mote in your brother's eye. Our respective ideologies could be making us stupid and we just cannot see what is plainly in front of us.
Pointing fingers is not leadership. People should ask themselves what they could do better that is not being done now.
Jewish left-wing antipathy toward Israel poses a bit of a puzzle, but not a mystery. Guys like these are sometimes described as "self-hating Jews," but you understand everything if you realize that is a misnomer. They don't hate themselves at all. They have an inflated self-regard that leads them to disdain fellow Jews. It's simply the Jewish variant of oikophobia. (Perhaps someone will think to coin the portmanteau "joikophobia.")
Oikophobia was a theme in the Bill Whittle video I linked to in the post Mordor?. I can follow Whittle's reasoning most of the way, but I stopped short of going the whole route by calling ones opponents evil. That represents falling into sort of a trap, I argued.
I have been offering a different thought, which I refer to as "Houston, We have a Solution". For instance, if the left says we have a problem with using fossil fuels, I say, let's figure out a better way. If you are inclined to say that there is no better way, well, maybe you could just be wrong. My proposal is not to engage in the argument over who is right or wrong, but find a common purpose and work from there. The common purpose is that we need to stop importing so much oil from unfriendly parts of the world. We also need to improve our trade balance and produce new jobs and new wealth. Why not do that by conquering space and perfecting fusion energy?
The left wants to impose new costs and burdens on us all. But is this really necessary? What if you could produce energy that is clean and affordable at the same time? That's the promise of fusion energy, advocated by Polywell Fusion and Focus Fusion. It is also the promise of space solar energy. Each of these are not economical at this time, but maybe we are a lot closer to that than most people seem to think.
Maybe the dragons that need to be slain are in own minds. Oikophobia posits that, but it also points the blame to someone else. Perhaps you could find it by looking in the mirror, since it could be that you are seeing the mote in your brother's eye. Our respective ideologies could be making us stupid and we just cannot see what is plainly in front of us.
Pointing fingers is not leadership. People should ask themselves what they could do better that is not being done now.
Next Big Future posts on cold fusion
Brian Ahern talk on Energy Localization and Nanomagnetism as explanation for LENR/Cold Fusion
quote:
Comment:
Once again, something that may be analogous to a "wave" gets connected to cold fusion. It may have little connection to this presentation, just an observation of mine. Here's another observation just now: "an overlap" of vibrational modes. Question: could these act like BEC's?
Magnetization textures in NiPd nanostructures
quote:
But magnetism is not a part of the BECNF theory. Palladium is paramagnetic, while nickel is paragmagnetic above the Curie point. This appears to be something of a contradiction. But this isn't BECNF theory, it is another theory altogether. BECNF is my speculation in this instance.
quote:
Cold Fusion in bulk, macroscopic systems is controlled by the overlap of the vibrational modes of the dissolved deuterium nuclei.
Comment:
Once again, something that may be analogous to a "wave" gets connected to cold fusion. It may have little connection to this presentation, just an observation of mine. Here's another observation just now: "an overlap" of vibrational modes. Question: could these act like BEC's?
Magnetization textures in NiPd nanostructures
quote:
The NIST work further confirms the Brian Ahern theory that nanomagnetism plays an important part in low energy assisted nuclear reactions. The nickel and palladium electrodes used in many cold fusion experiments would have this nanomagnetic behavior.Comment:
But magnetism is not a part of the BECNF theory. Palladium is paramagnetic, while nickel is paragmagnetic above the Curie point. This appears to be something of a contradiction. But this isn't BECNF theory, it is another theory altogether. BECNF is my speculation in this instance.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Newt and the Governing Class
American Thinker
quote:
That kind of an opening was enough to catch my eye. But Bachmann is out there saying Newt is not the outsider. People seem not to like him and he is said to be blunt. Bluntness doesn't bother me, particularly if he is telling off these guys in Washington DC. Somebody has got to do it.
I did find something interesting in the comments section which mentions an Ann Coulter column, so I read it. Now, that's Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck who are anti Newt. Ann mentioned some stuff that was so off the wall that it is a source of concern about Gingrich.
There's two sides to a story. Gingrich got some good ratings from Conservatives who provide that info, although I can't site it here because I didn't make a note of it. At the time he was Speaker, the Congress was pretty conservative and held Clinton in check. After his party forced him out, they lost control of the spending, lost Congress, and opened the door for Obama.
So it is surprising to read that he is not really a conservative. I do remember Limbaugh saying it though. The truth may well be that he isn't that conservative, but how conservative is he really?
quote:
I just returned from the belly of the beast, Washington, D.C.Comment:
That kind of an opening was enough to catch my eye. But Bachmann is out there saying Newt is not the outsider. People seem not to like him and he is said to be blunt. Bluntness doesn't bother me, particularly if he is telling off these guys in Washington DC. Somebody has got to do it.
I did find something interesting in the comments section which mentions an Ann Coulter column, so I read it. Now, that's Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck who are anti Newt. Ann mentioned some stuff that was so off the wall that it is a source of concern about Gingrich.
There's two sides to a story. Gingrich got some good ratings from Conservatives who provide that info, although I can't site it here because I didn't make a note of it. At the time he was Speaker, the Congress was pretty conservative and held Clinton in check. After his party forced him out, they lost control of the spending, lost Congress, and opened the door for Obama.
So it is surprising to read that he is not really a conservative. I do remember Limbaugh saying it though. The truth may well be that he isn't that conservative, but how conservative is he really?
Lots of time to decide the nominee
Sabato's Crystal Ball h/t Transterrestrial Musings
Texas' primary is on March 6th, a big day in Texas history. Perhaps this isn't an analogy that one should seek, though. Some politician may go down in flames on that day, as a manner of speaking.
Texas' primary is on March 6th, a big day in Texas history. Perhaps this isn't an analogy that one should seek, though. Some politician may go down in flames on that day, as a manner of speaking.
Newt Gingrich IQ More Verbal Than Analytical
ParaPundit: Razib Khan
H/T Instapundit
quote:
This gets back to message discipline, which I mentioned earlier. There isn't anyone out there who doesn't have baggage and that includes Romney. One of them has to win, but the victory could be Pyrrhic as long as this type of commentary persists. Some legitimate points do get made in Parker's post, however. If Gingrich is too much of an egotist, it won't be a good thing.
But I am not on any bandwagon. People may regret the forcing out of Herman Cain. Parker says Cain is ignorant. Well, we don't elect eggheads, now do we?
H/T Instapundit
quote:
I've always kind of liked Newt, but he's a flake.
This gets back to message discipline, which I mentioned earlier. There isn't anyone out there who doesn't have baggage and that includes Romney. One of them has to win, but the victory could be Pyrrhic as long as this type of commentary persists. Some legitimate points do get made in Parker's post, however. If Gingrich is too much of an egotist, it won't be a good thing.
But I am not on any bandwagon. People may regret the forcing out of Herman Cain. Parker says Cain is ignorant. Well, we don't elect eggheads, now do we?
Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut
The Hill's E2-Wire h/t Instapundit
quote:
Nice! But it would be even better if the Republicans would go for partial privatization of Social Security. The reason being that the Democrats have had no compunction with weakening the finances of the Social Security system. In addition, Obama threatened to withhold checks during the debt negotiations. But taking the money and putting it into private accounts does neither of these things, but the opposite.
Good hardball politics. Not politics schmolitics, which is phoney baloney. Just like Obama's faux concern for jobs. Not to mention his faux concern for the middle class. He is merely using people for his own benefit.
quote:
Obama warned that he would veto an extension of the payroll-tax cut, his top legislative priority, if House Republicans link it to a measure that would force the administration to greenlight the pipeline project.
Nice! But it would be even better if the Republicans would go for partial privatization of Social Security. The reason being that the Democrats have had no compunction with weakening the finances of the Social Security system. In addition, Obama threatened to withhold checks during the debt negotiations. But taking the money and putting it into private accounts does neither of these things, but the opposite.
Good hardball politics. Not politics schmolitics, which is phoney baloney. Just like Obama's faux concern for jobs. Not to mention his faux concern for the middle class. He is merely using people for his own benefit.
Limbaugh Declares Fox News and National Review to Be Un-Conservative
The Atlantic
quote:
Comment:
I wouldn't be too hard on Rush. I don't think everybody has to be in lock step with each other, but on the other hand, it is well to remember that some basic message discipline is worthwhile. I think what Limbaugh is arguing against is the "eat our own" type of rhetoric that so many are enamored with. I have commented upon that phenomenon myself with respect to the Herman Cain implosion.
Limbaugh says in his own book that you should think for yourselves. But at the same time you should also know that, at least some of this intraparty bickering is not helpful for the conservative movement. At some point, a line needs to be drawn. I think that is what Limbaugh is trying to do in some instances. Not that this is the sum total of what he is referring to in the Atlantic piece linked to via the above quote, but it is part of it.
Finally, the Atlantic isn't exactly conservative, now is it? It is amazing the kind of advice given to conservatives from those who aren't. So now those who aren't conservative will be the ones to say who is? That above quote seems far more presumptuous than what Limbaugh said.
quote:
So what prompted Limbaugh to proclaim himself and fellow talk radio hosts the only true conservatives?
Comment:
I wouldn't be too hard on Rush. I don't think everybody has to be in lock step with each other, but on the other hand, it is well to remember that some basic message discipline is worthwhile. I think what Limbaugh is arguing against is the "eat our own" type of rhetoric that so many are enamored with. I have commented upon that phenomenon myself with respect to the Herman Cain implosion.
Limbaugh says in his own book that you should think for yourselves. But at the same time you should also know that, at least some of this intraparty bickering is not helpful for the conservative movement. At some point, a line needs to be drawn. I think that is what Limbaugh is trying to do in some instances. Not that this is the sum total of what he is referring to in the Atlantic piece linked to via the above quote, but it is part of it.
Finally, the Atlantic isn't exactly conservative, now is it? It is amazing the kind of advice given to conservatives from those who aren't. So now those who aren't conservative will be the ones to say who is? That above quote seems far more presumptuous than what Limbaugh said.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun
Grand Funk Railroad
They really do want your gun, too. It's the way of the tyrant. Sheep don't carry guns, but the wolves are sure to.
Update:
New docs show Fast and Furious was going to be used to justify gun control measures. This coming from an administration that may be illegitimate.
They really do want your gun, too. It's the way of the tyrant. Sheep don't carry guns, but the wolves are sure to.
Update:
New docs show Fast and Furious was going to be used to justify gun control measures. This coming from an administration that may be illegitimate.
moonandback.com: QuickLaunch Interview
With John Hunter and Eric Robinson
Discusses history of the company, why aquatic basing, how Eric became the "spark plug" of the company, recent developments, moon and Mars concepts and advantages, 400 hundred meter entry level system does 100 payloads, John's career story, real world stuff, young kids love this project, Eric's career, his space projects (on Mars).
Bottom line: This is an enabling technology for space exploration and development.
In two parts
Discusses history of the company, why aquatic basing, how Eric became the "spark plug" of the company, recent developments, moon and Mars concepts and advantages, 400 hundred meter entry level system does 100 payloads, John's career story, real world stuff, young kids love this project, Eric's career, his space projects (on Mars).
Bottom line: This is an enabling technology for space exploration and development.
In two parts
Constitution Kills Third Party Bid
Michael Medved
quote:
Comment:
I doubt how wise it is to have a split executive branch. The second banana will always want to be the top dog. Unless you have a system that encourages the second banana to be satisfied with that, you will encourage intrigues.
This is a dumb idea.
quote:
The ambitious outfit “Americans Elect” has reportedly raised $30 million and secured ballot positions in ten states for its proposed bi-partisan ticket – with a presidential candidate from one major party, and vice presidential nominee from the other.
Comment:
I doubt how wise it is to have a split executive branch. The second banana will always want to be the top dog. Unless you have a system that encourages the second banana to be satisfied with that, you will encourage intrigues.
This is a dumb idea.
7-Year-Old Accused Of Possible Sexual Harassment For Kicking Boy In Groin
CBS Boston
Comment:
Someone asked "what happened to self defense"? That reminds me of what I heard about in Great Britain. In that country, if you are attacked and defend yourself, you can get into trouble. Evidently, some of these politically correct types want to import that tyrannical policy to this country. If the Brits came to their senses, they'd change that law. If we don't want that law, better get ready to fight the authorities, because they love this kind of thing. They'd prefer nobody to oppose their rule. Do away with your right of self defense and your guns. All power to the state!
Comment:
Someone asked "what happened to self defense"? That reminds me of what I heard about in Great Britain. In that country, if you are attacked and defend yourself, you can get into trouble. Evidently, some of these politically correct types want to import that tyrannical policy to this country. If the Brits came to their senses, they'd change that law. If we don't want that law, better get ready to fight the authorities, because they love this kind of thing. They'd prefer nobody to oppose their rule. Do away with your right of self defense and your guns. All power to the state!
Inhofe to climate conference: Nobody’s listening any more
posted at 10:50 am on December 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
quote:
If climate change activism was really about reducing carbon emissions, they'd support space solar satellites. So where is that? By the way, here's somebody who wants to lead an expedition to the moon in search of resources which could enable such an industry based on the moon.
quote:
Two years ago, the Obama administration practically staged an airlift of leading Democratic officials to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. ...In the end, Obama could only produce a non-binding agreement that even he didn’t agree to sign,Comment:
If climate change activism was really about reducing carbon emissions, they'd support space solar satellites. So where is that? By the way, here's somebody who wants to lead an expedition to the moon in search of resources which could enable such an industry based on the moon.
Liberty Legal Foundation serves DNC with Obama eligibility complaint
Examiner.com
quote:
Note the key point: That there was a Supreme Court decision that decides the issue and Obama is on the wrong side of that.
quote:
The LLF lawsuit cites the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett, in which the court defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”Comment:
Note the key point: That there was a Supreme Court decision that decides the issue and Obama is on the wrong side of that.
Return of the War Party?
Pat Buchanan
quote:
Comment:
This is the fly in the ointment for the Republicans. If they are seen as war hawks, they'll run into a lot of opposition at the polls. Better to talk peace and work towards peace than allow themselves to get painted into that corner. Bush did that, no need to repeat that mistake.
Update:
The reason I brought up Buchanan is that he had something on the web yesterday, but I didn't find it on his website. I don't remember where I saw it, but he said that FDR provoked Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. It is well worth remembering that the Japanese attacked us when we were at peace and in peace talks with them. It is not so good for us to start acting like the Imperial Japanese and attack other countries we don't agree with.
On the other hand, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. You can't go from one extreme to another.
Yes, I know. Today is Pearl Harbor day.
Update:
Doolittle Raid Recalled Almost 70 Years Later
quote:
Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.
Comment:
This is the fly in the ointment for the Republicans. If they are seen as war hawks, they'll run into a lot of opposition at the polls. Better to talk peace and work towards peace than allow themselves to get painted into that corner. Bush did that, no need to repeat that mistake.
Update:
The reason I brought up Buchanan is that he had something on the web yesterday, but I didn't find it on his website. I don't remember where I saw it, but he said that FDR provoked Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. It is well worth remembering that the Japanese attacked us when we were at peace and in peace talks with them. It is not so good for us to start acting like the Imperial Japanese and attack other countries we don't agree with.
On the other hand, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. You can't go from one extreme to another.
Yes, I know. Today is Pearl Harbor day.
Update:
Doolittle Raid Recalled Almost 70 Years Later
A big step forward in understanding male-female cognitive differences
A big step forward in understanding male-female cognitive differences h/t Transterrestrial Musings
quote ( which reminded me of a joke)
Comment: Hmmm. He's very careful not to say that men are smarter than women, but this one gets a bit close.
By the way, the joke was about a boss I had a long time ago. I didn't say it, but somebody else did. It went something like this: he has a 100 mph mouth and a 5 mph brain. But that was a "he", not a "she". A certain glibness doesn't not equate to higher intelligence, but that is often the way people think. Ah, I am reminded of this old saying, possibly attributable to Abraham Lincoln: Better to be quiet and look stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
quote ( which reminded me of a joke)
Men tend to be better at certain spatial tasks, which require a lot of neurons; women tend to be better at verbal tasks, which require fewer neurons.
Comment: Hmmm. He's very careful not to say that men are smarter than women, but this one gets a bit close.
By the way, the joke was about a boss I had a long time ago. I didn't say it, but somebody else did. It went something like this: he has a 100 mph mouth and a 5 mph brain. But that was a "he", not a "she". A certain glibness doesn't not equate to higher intelligence, but that is often the way people think. Ah, I am reminded of this old saying, possibly attributable to Abraham Lincoln: Better to be quiet and look stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Gingrich is not an ideologue
That's a hypothesis, not a conclusion. I can give some evidence as follows:
Each of those are good posts, I hope you have the time to read them. There is a post not on that list which gives a historical example of how ideology can make you stupid. That was Adolf Hitler and the atom bomb. Germany was ahead of everybody in that technology, but Hitler denounced it as "Jewish physics", which was stupid. His ideology, which was of his own creation, made him blind to the reality that the physics was valid. Just because he hated Jews did not make it any less valid.
The proposition that you need an ideology to see the truth is one that does not always hold up. That's being a bit charitable. Perhaps it never holds up, but that is too harsh. The truth is a slippery thing indeed.
- He got pushed out of the job of Speaker, because of some reason that may have had more to do with ideology than anything else [ I'll have to research that a bit, but it is only an hypothesis]
- He nearly got pushed out of the nomination for president because he criticized the Ryan plan
- He seems to be about getting solutions, having started up an organization called American Solutions
- Mordor?
- Morning break, 6/22
- Notes from Mallove's "Fire from Ice", Part III
- US defense chief says NATO outlook dim ...
Each of those are good posts, I hope you have the time to read them. There is a post not on that list which gives a historical example of how ideology can make you stupid. That was Adolf Hitler and the atom bomb. Germany was ahead of everybody in that technology, but Hitler denounced it as "Jewish physics", which was stupid. His ideology, which was of his own creation, made him blind to the reality that the physics was valid. Just because he hated Jews did not make it any less valid.
The proposition that you need an ideology to see the truth is one that does not always hold up. That's being a bit charitable. Perhaps it never holds up, but that is too harsh. The truth is a slippery thing indeed.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Too naive
I just listened to an interview of the author of Throw them all out by Peter Schweizer, which I found the link to on the Barnhardt site. I had suspected that something like this was going on, but this could be even worse than I thought.
With that in mind, I changed my header to reflect some doubt about the possibility of a brighter future. As long as this stuff goes on unchallenged, there's not much chance for anything getting any better for anybody out here in the heartland.
I knew this were pretty good in Washington, though. This has been true even before Obama showed up. DC produces nothing but government, yet the GDP per capita is higher than any state. Probably significantly higher, although somebody must have scrubbed the numbers because the last time I checked, it wasn't quite as high as before.
I'll stand by the potential, but a lot of this is dependent upon a just and honorable government.
With that in mind, I changed my header to reflect some doubt about the possibility of a brighter future. As long as this stuff goes on unchallenged, there's not much chance for anything getting any better for anybody out here in the heartland.
I knew this were pretty good in Washington, though. This has been true even before Obama showed up. DC produces nothing but government, yet the GDP per capita is higher than any state. Probably significantly higher, although somebody must have scrubbed the numbers because the last time I checked, it wasn't quite as high as before.
I'll stand by the potential, but a lot of this is dependent upon a just and honorable government.
Alex Tabarrok on how ideas trump crises
h/t Instapundit
I watched the TED talk, which was linked via Instapundit and this online article called "The End of Stagnation and the Coming Innovation Boom".
Besides the video, I wanted to include this quote:
Comment:
If there were shorter patents, something like the E-cat could get a patent. This could speed up the adoption of the technology. In such as case, it should be a positive good to receive the benefit of a new technology as soon as possible.
I watched the TED talk, which was linked via Instapundit and this online article called "The End of Stagnation and the Coming Innovation Boom".
Besides the video, I wanted to include this quote:
The most important point is blindingly obvious yet ignored: not every innovation needs or deserves a 20-year patent. It's crazy that one-click shopping or reverse auctions are granted the same 20-year monopoly rights as a pharmaceutical that took 15 years and a billion dollars to research and develop. Thus, I advocate creating classes of patents of say 20, 7, and 3 years. Shorter patents would be approved more quickly and with less investigation.
Comment:
If there were shorter patents, something like the E-cat could get a patent. This could speed up the adoption of the technology. In such as case, it should be a positive good to receive the benefit of a new technology as soon as possible.
National Ignition Facility
When it comes to actually cutting budgets, which ones would you cut? That's the question that gets bandied about in politics in the coming election season.
If the idea is to create a new source of energy, somebody may have considered cutting this at one time. According to the New York Times article, printed in 2000, this was originally a 2.2 billion dollar project. It may have had as much as a factor of four final price tag higher than originally planned. These numbers are not precise, but that brings it up to nearly 9 billion dollars.
Surely there were better uses for the money elsewhere.
It would seem a contradiction for me to be critical of this, but consider the fact that the Polywell project headed up by Dr. Bussard was much cheaper. It also had a plan for a prototype reactor, which I can't find in the wikipedia write up for the NIF. With a fraction of the money spent, there may have been a working reactor by now if Bussard's device was fully funded instead of being stopped at about 2005 or 2006.
Since so much more money was spent on the NIF, there wasn't enough money for the Polywell. Nor for any other project, such as Dense Plasma Focus. Both of these projects would have had a smaller price tag than the NIF and each of them could have been successful sooner.
There may well have been money left over for other projects.
No room to make cuts? If this is any indication, there's plenty of fat to cut from the budget. And it won't harm priorities. To the contrary, it may achieve them sooner and at a lower cost. That's the whole idea.
If the idea is to create a new source of energy, somebody may have considered cutting this at one time. According to the New York Times article, printed in 2000, this was originally a 2.2 billion dollar project. It may have had as much as a factor of four final price tag higher than originally planned. These numbers are not precise, but that brings it up to nearly 9 billion dollars.
Surely there were better uses for the money elsewhere.
It would seem a contradiction for me to be critical of this, but consider the fact that the Polywell project headed up by Dr. Bussard was much cheaper. It also had a plan for a prototype reactor, which I can't find in the wikipedia write up for the NIF. With a fraction of the money spent, there may have been a working reactor by now if Bussard's device was fully funded instead of being stopped at about 2005 or 2006.
Since so much more money was spent on the NIF, there wasn't enough money for the Polywell. Nor for any other project, such as Dense Plasma Focus. Both of these projects would have had a smaller price tag than the NIF and each of them could have been successful sooner.
There may well have been money left over for other projects.
No room to make cuts? If this is any indication, there's plenty of fat to cut from the budget. And it won't harm priorities. To the contrary, it may achieve them sooner and at a lower cost. That's the whole idea.
Newt, the Perseverant Autodidact
Michael Barone - National Review Online
Comment:
Maybe a translation is in order. Someone seeing this title may be intimidated by it. "Autodidact" means self taught. I don't mind relating that I had to look that up.
By the way, Barone's piece isn't an endorsement, but it isn't an anti endorsement either.
Comment:
Maybe a translation is in order. Someone seeing this title may be intimidated by it. "Autodidact" means self taught. I don't mind relating that I had to look that up.
By the way, Barone's piece isn't an endorsement, but it isn't an anti endorsement either.
Romney Cynical, Gingrich Clueless, So Sayeth Krugman
American Thinker
Comment:
This post is similar to what was known in the early days of blogging as a Fisking. It seems not to be as stylish as it may have been. A good fisking would thorough nuking of his arguments. It is a creditable job, but I wonder if I may add a few things and while I am at it, maybe throw in a few dollops of style. On second thought, my style points aren't any better, but I am tempted to give it a shot anyway, because Krugman is leading with his chin.
Let's just make it simple. What Krugman is saying is that the problems are so big that the Republicans can't handle them any better than Obama has. This is an admission of failure. Krugman has been saying all along that the year before the election is critical and this year has not been good for Obama. In his own mind, he can't see victory ahead, but he can at least try to sully the Republicans as much as he can and perhaps salvage some regrouping point from a political debacle that he fears is coming.
Comment:
This post is similar to what was known in the early days of blogging as a Fisking. It seems not to be as stylish as it may have been. A good fisking would thorough nuking of his arguments. It is a creditable job, but I wonder if I may add a few things and while I am at it, maybe throw in a few dollops of style. On second thought, my style points aren't any better, but I am tempted to give it a shot anyway, because Krugman is leading with his chin.
Let's just make it simple. What Krugman is saying is that the problems are so big that the Republicans can't handle them any better than Obama has. This is an admission of failure. Krugman has been saying all along that the year before the election is critical and this year has not been good for Obama. In his own mind, he can't see victory ahead, but he can at least try to sully the Republicans as much as he can and perhaps salvage some regrouping point from a political debacle that he fears is coming.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Life on other planets far, far away
I may be interested in space, but I am also quite practical. Some may say too practical. This bit of news about a planet in a habitable zone on a planet hundreds of light years away just doesn't do anything (practical ) for me. That's because there is practical no useful value in this information. Even if you find something, what do you do with it?
The distances are so great that even if you can go the speed of light, it would take hundreds of years to go there and come back. Nobody could have any emotional connection to such a journey. You can't even communicate with them because it would take a message that long to get back and forth. What good is this knowledge?
All of this curiousity about Mars also isn't very useful either. Even though we could possibly get there and back with today's technology, what useful value can be derived from it?
This may all seem to contradict my interest in space, but if anyone thinks so, they aren't paying attention. There are practical useful things that can be done in space, but looking for life on other planets either in this star system or in another- is not one of them.
I suggest starting with the moon. If can't do anything on the moon that is useful and practical, you probably can't do it anywhere. The cost of going to far away destinations will be too prohibitive, the danger will too great. It just won't happen in anybody's lifetime. But we were on the moon over 40 years ago. We haven't done anything with that knowledge either. But getting there was a start in that direction if anyone would just bother to see it that way.
In this age of budget austerity, it would make a lot of sense to reorder our priorities. There is too much waste, and programs like searching for earth-like planets is an example of that. We need to concentrate our efforts on goals that are reachable, not on goals that can never be reached in our lifetimes. We should concentrate on useful information, not information that we can't possibly do anything with.
The distances are so great that even if you can go the speed of light, it would take hundreds of years to go there and come back. Nobody could have any emotional connection to such a journey. You can't even communicate with them because it would take a message that long to get back and forth. What good is this knowledge?
All of this curiousity about Mars also isn't very useful either. Even though we could possibly get there and back with today's technology, what useful value can be derived from it?
This may all seem to contradict my interest in space, but if anyone thinks so, they aren't paying attention. There are practical useful things that can be done in space, but looking for life on other planets either in this star system or in another- is not one of them.
I suggest starting with the moon. If can't do anything on the moon that is useful and practical, you probably can't do it anywhere. The cost of going to far away destinations will be too prohibitive, the danger will too great. It just won't happen in anybody's lifetime. But we were on the moon over 40 years ago. We haven't done anything with that knowledge either. But getting there was a start in that direction if anyone would just bother to see it that way.
In this age of budget austerity, it would make a lot of sense to reorder our priorities. There is too much waste, and programs like searching for earth-like planets is an example of that. We need to concentrate our efforts on goals that are reachable, not on goals that can never be reached in our lifetimes. We should concentrate on useful information, not information that we can't possibly do anything with.
The problem with the U.S. labor market isn’t bad full-time jobs, just not enough of them
The Enterprise Blog
quote:
Comment:
That may relate to this quote here from another source:
Maybe they should heed Jay Leno's advice and learn how to weld. However, if the number of unemployed males is so high, that spells trouble for Democrats. Men tend to favor someone who will bring change, as women are more risk averse. A lot of unemployed males does not bode well for Obama.
There was something related to this working man theme today about Democrats abandoning the white working class.
It doesn't help that Obama blocked the XL pipeline. That would have created a lot of these new blue collar jobs. There's a school of thought here that the right leader won't necessarily solve this structural problem. But the wrong leader can make it worse than it has to be.
quote:
the killer jobs number isn’t the U-3 unemployment rate of 9.0 percent, but the broader U-6 number of 16.2 percent, which includes “all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.”
Comment:
That may relate to this quote here from another source:
This is an employment crisis not of college-educated women (just read into the data compiled by the BLS every month) who have an unemployment rate of barely more than 4 percent and decent wages. This is a crisis of men who did not go to college, who do not have the tools and never acquired the skills—knowing how to learn—that are so needed today.
Maybe they should heed Jay Leno's advice and learn how to weld. However, if the number of unemployed males is so high, that spells trouble for Democrats. Men tend to favor someone who will bring change, as women are more risk averse. A lot of unemployed males does not bode well for Obama.
There was something related to this working man theme today about Democrats abandoning the white working class.
It doesn't help that Obama blocked the XL pipeline. That would have created a lot of these new blue collar jobs. There's a school of thought here that the right leader won't necessarily solve this structural problem. But the wrong leader can make it worse than it has to be.
A Tale Of Two Economies In The Headlines
The Right Sphere
quote:
Media bias, we've known about it forever, it seems. The key thing to remember is that most of the media will vote for Democrats. If Republicans were reporting like this, or even reporting the news at all, there would be a different story.
quote:
The problem is, most journalists have an inherent bias that affects their reporting. They just don’t realize it. It just comes out naturally. The majority of those who work in journalism are Democrats/liberals.Comment: Greater than the majority, I suspect. More like 90 per cent Democrat.
Media bias, we've known about it forever, it seems. The key thing to remember is that most of the media will vote for Democrats. If Republicans were reporting like this, or even reporting the news at all, there would be a different story.
Huntsman: People Are "Starting To Take A Second Look"
Just staying off the bandwagon and keep looking at all of the candidates.
The gathering storm
Uploaded by patcondell on Nov 29, 2011
An eloquent statement.
I can't embed it for some reason, it keeps switching another video into its place.
An eloquent statement.
I can't embed it for some reason, it keeps switching another video into its place.
A Road Map to 270 Electoral Votes
2012 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College
A Road Map to 270 Electoral Votes
Comment:
Could be a very close election, unless something happens. Obama won all of these states in 2008. If he wins most of them again, he wins again. On the other hand, if he loses most of these, he will likely lose. That's especially true of the bigger states.
A Road Map to 270 Electoral Votes
Comment:
Could be a very close election, unless something happens. Obama won all of these states in 2008. If he wins most of them again, he wins again. On the other hand, if he loses most of these, he will likely lose. That's especially true of the bigger states.
Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status
I've written on this subject before. Unfortunately, when I did, I was unaware of Justiagate. If you aren't familiar, this was the intent to remove information with respect to Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS. This could be pretty big stuff. I became aware of it myself only fairly recently.
Another point in order to gain clarification: Obama's birth place isn't the only matter at stake. If it were only that. This is a matter which regards an actual Supreme Court decision which defines "natural born citizen". It is not enough to be a citizen, the Constitution requires a natural born citizen. It is the law of the land and it could have been violated. This needs to be looked into.
The big scandal is that references to this judicial decision was scrubbed from the web. It wasn't covered up completely, but that's not the point. The point is that somebody wanted to cover it up at all.
Another point in order to gain clarification: Obama's birth place isn't the only matter at stake. If it were only that. This is a matter which regards an actual Supreme Court decision which defines "natural born citizen". It is not enough to be a citizen, the Constitution requires a natural born citizen. It is the law of the land and it could have been violated. This needs to be looked into.
The big scandal is that references to this judicial decision was scrubbed from the web. It wasn't covered up completely, but that's not the point. The point is that somebody wanted to cover it up at all.
Corzine ties put Dems in tricky position
TheHill.com
quote:
Comment: That accusation from the House Republicans is nothing compared to what Barnhardt is saying. She is accusing Corzine of outright theft. I think she has a point.
This may getting muddied over so that the ordinary folk may not get it. It comes down to this: Corzine used funds from clients deposits that should not have been available to him. If it was a bank, it would be called embezzlement. Try to think of it as an analogy to this: your deposits in a bank being used for Corzines' personal use because he got into some trouble because of a bad deal. Your money is your money, not the banks'. That's what's wrong with what he did. He is a thief.
Papering it over as an "improper transaction" doesn't quite state the enormity of what he did. Republicans only want to play fair with donations- they don't seem to be very interested in protecting the financial integrity of the nation's financial system.
quote:
House Republicans are accusing Democrats of hypocrisy for not returning contributions from Corzine, whose brokerage firm may have lost more than $1 billion of clients’ money through improper transactions.
Comment: That accusation from the House Republicans is nothing compared to what Barnhardt is saying. She is accusing Corzine of outright theft. I think she has a point.
This may getting muddied over so that the ordinary folk may not get it. It comes down to this: Corzine used funds from clients deposits that should not have been available to him. If it was a bank, it would be called embezzlement. Try to think of it as an analogy to this: your deposits in a bank being used for Corzines' personal use because he got into some trouble because of a bad deal. Your money is your money, not the banks'. That's what's wrong with what he did. He is a thief.
Papering it over as an "improper transaction" doesn't quite state the enormity of what he did. Republicans only want to play fair with donations- they don't seem to be very interested in protecting the financial integrity of the nation's financial system.
Ann Barnhardt on today's immorality
That last post gave me the idea for this post. So I went over to Ann Barnhardt's site and I realized what she is saying is absolutely right. She rips the politicians a new one every day. Our society is morally corrupt, I have no doubt about it now. That fact that Congress, and in particular, the Democrats, believe that the people can be bribed into supporting them tells you everything you need to know about the state of the union. It tells you something about the Congress, but it also tells you something about the people. We still have the right to vote and we still elect these reprobates. Too many people think you can get something for nothing and actually expect to be given a free ride. The government is losing its legitimacy because the only thing that can enforce a sense of obligation is by force or by moral choice. If there's no morality, there can be no choice. That leaves force. In such a case as that, freedom cannot continue to exist.
Update:
I've just listened to the interview where Ann Barnhardt was on as a guest. It makes Chris Laird's stuff look tame by comparison. If she's right, we are in for one helluva bad time coming up shortly.
I'd like to believe that this can be avoided and it could. But most people don't believe that there's a problem and definitely refuse to believe that those in charge are to blame for it. That's because it is an indictment of themselves as well for we have the power to choose our own leaders and this is what we have chosen for ourselves. Wait until the crap hits the fan and then everybody will understand that the buck will have to stop somewhere and that can be found by looking into the mirror.
Update:
I've just listened to the interview where Ann Barnhardt was on as a guest. It makes Chris Laird's stuff look tame by comparison. If she's right, we are in for one helluva bad time coming up shortly.
I'd like to believe that this can be avoided and it could. But most people don't believe that there's a problem and definitely refuse to believe that those in charge are to blame for it. That's because it is an indictment of themselves as well for we have the power to choose our own leaders and this is what we have chosen for ourselves. Wait until the crap hits the fan and then everybody will understand that the buck will have to stop somewhere and that can be found by looking into the mirror.
Sen. Conrad: Reid to unveil payroll tax holiday compromise
The Hill's On The Money
Comment: I think an opportunity is being missed on this issue. Rather than have a "payroll tax holiday", why don't the Republican try the privatization route again? If they are going to take money out of social security and return it to the people, why not keep it within the spirit of strengthening social security? This payroll tax holiday only weakens social security more and requires some sort of fix. This idea would be a fix and also get the money back to the people who earn it.
The Democrats want to "pay" for the payroll tax holiday by a surtax on millionaires. That's just more of the same old class warfare politics that doesn't solve any problems. It also creates a moral hazard in that people are getting something for nothing. By giving it back in order to keep in the spirit of providing for one's own old age, the moral hazard is not being risked.
Democrats class warfare ideas are not helpful, but to the contrary. It is morally and ethically corrupt to take from one class of people and give to another. People should take of their own responsibilities.
Comment: I think an opportunity is being missed on this issue. Rather than have a "payroll tax holiday", why don't the Republican try the privatization route again? If they are going to take money out of social security and return it to the people, why not keep it within the spirit of strengthening social security? This payroll tax holiday only weakens social security more and requires some sort of fix. This idea would be a fix and also get the money back to the people who earn it.
The Democrats want to "pay" for the payroll tax holiday by a surtax on millionaires. That's just more of the same old class warfare politics that doesn't solve any problems. It also creates a moral hazard in that people are getting something for nothing. By giving it back in order to keep in the spirit of providing for one's own old age, the moral hazard is not being risked.
Democrats class warfare ideas are not helpful, but to the contrary. It is morally and ethically corrupt to take from one class of people and give to another. People should take of their own responsibilities.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Cold fusion confusion
My latest study was of the muon catalyzed fusion and it appears to me to be somewhat doubtful proposition for commercialization. The reason being that producing the muons is a bit of a challenge. In fact, that is indeed the problem in a nutshell. If muons could be produced in quantity and at low cost, this type of fusion would be feasible. This has known that for decades, however. It doesn't make sense to withhold that invention, should economical muon production had been achieved. It is not like cold fusion, in that the science is pretty much mainstream. You can't get a patent for cold fusion devices in the US, but you could get one for muon production, provided that you can prove it.
The thought that cold fusion is impossible is a bit of a semantic argument. If muon catalyzed fusion is possible, it is already "cold" because it can take place at room temperature. Maybe even below room temperature. Therefore, the problem is in the semantics, not the facts. Cold fusion is possible in this instance. The question should be this: is there some other way around the coulomb barrier? Somebody has thought of a way- or should I say many people have thought of ways in which this might be accomplished. Yet, for some reason, mainstream science doesn't even want to consider the possibility of cold fusion. How do you resolve this contradiction? Perhaps you can start by agreeing upon a definition of what cold fusion actually is.
Being somewhat more careful than average about word meanings, if I am not sure about what the word means, I'll go look it up. Okay, so let's do that for cold fusion and see what's out there:
Wikipedia isn't too sure about it, so there's a disambiguation page to clarify it. Cold fusion seems to have more meanings than the ones I usually think of. My understanding of cold fusion relates to the science. But there are other meanings, which are not anything like the science. Let's not go there and just stick with the scientific meaning.
Even there, the wiki has four different meanings
A lot of the confusion seems to have started with a misunderstanding between Fleischmann and Jones at the time that they had agreed upon a joint submission for publication of their respective work. Jones was working on muon catalyzed fusion:
The curious thing about it all was that there were anomalies which should have been a good enough reason for continued study. The unfortunate thing about it was that this continued "pathological scientific research" had to continue under a cloud of controversy. The controversy continues to this very day. Shouldn't the cold fusion confusion be laid to rest?
The thought that cold fusion is impossible is a bit of a semantic argument. If muon catalyzed fusion is possible, it is already "cold" because it can take place at room temperature. Maybe even below room temperature. Therefore, the problem is in the semantics, not the facts. Cold fusion is possible in this instance. The question should be this: is there some other way around the coulomb barrier? Somebody has thought of a way- or should I say many people have thought of ways in which this might be accomplished. Yet, for some reason, mainstream science doesn't even want to consider the possibility of cold fusion. How do you resolve this contradiction? Perhaps you can start by agreeing upon a definition of what cold fusion actually is.
Being somewhat more careful than average about word meanings, if I am not sure about what the word means, I'll go look it up. Okay, so let's do that for cold fusion and see what's out there:
Wikipedia isn't too sure about it, so there's a disambiguation page to clarify it. Cold fusion seems to have more meanings than the ones I usually think of. My understanding of cold fusion relates to the science. But there are other meanings, which are not anything like the science. Let's not go there and just stick with the scientific meaning.
Even there, the wiki has four different meanings
- The low temperature low energy type usually associated with Fleischmann and Pons
- Muon catalyzed fusion
- Pyroelectric fusion , which is something I've never heard of before
- Nuclear fusion at high energies [ comment: that doesn't exactly qualify, does it? It does break down this further into something called "generally cold but locally hot fusion"]
A lot of the confusion seems to have started with a misunderstanding between Fleischmann and Jones at the time that they had agreed upon a joint submission for publication of their respective work. Jones was working on muon catalyzed fusion:
"Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987Perhaps the confusion and controversy could have been avoided if the agreement had been kept. It would seem that the whole thing deteriorated from that point on until "cold fusion" became known as a pathological science. Any scientist caught working on this could be punished.
The curious thing about it all was that there were anomalies which should have been a good enough reason for continued study. The unfortunate thing about it was that this continued "pathological scientific research" had to continue under a cloud of controversy. The controversy continues to this very day. Shouldn't the cold fusion confusion be laid to rest?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)