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.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Kardashevian Aspirations: Space X from 60 Minutes
Kardashevian Aspirations: Space X from 60 Minutes: h/t Next Big Future Comment: Musk seems deeply disappointed that his heroes from the Apollo Era, Neil Armstrong and others, were not sup...
Dems Face Senate Disaster
Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
Morris says he has never seen anything like this. It is early in the campaign and usually the insurgents are not this strong this soon. Romney will poll stronger later when the campaign settles out. Note: If Morris is right, then all the more reason not to settle on Romney so soon. If all he is is a RINO, then you still will have a Democrat in the White House.
Morris says he has never seen anything like this. It is early in the campaign and usually the insurgents are not this strong this soon. Romney will poll stronger later when the campaign settles out. Note: If Morris is right, then all the more reason not to settle on Romney so soon. If all he is is a RINO, then you still will have a Democrat in the White House.
Obama Assumes Dictatorial Powers
Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
Morris says Obama knows he won't be re-elected and is planning a scorched earth policy towards the country.
Morris says Obama knows he won't be re-elected and is planning a scorched earth policy towards the country.
Santorum had it right the first time
Rick Santorum in Cavuto Interview: ‘This Is the Hatchet-Job of All Time’ (Video Added)
Santorum was right to say that we might as well keep Obama if all we are going to do is elect another guy just like him.
That attack is devastating and he should not have backed off of it. Now he is guaranteed to discredit himself by backing off of it.
Romney wants everything both ways and he keeps getting away with it. Don't be surprised when he acts like a Democrat if he is elected.
Santorum was right to say that we might as well keep Obama if all we are going to do is elect another guy just like him.
That attack is devastating and he should not have backed off of it. Now he is guaranteed to discredit himself by backing off of it.
Romney wants everything both ways and he keeps getting away with it. Don't be surprised when he acts like a Democrat if he is elected.
Judge Judy - Most shocking ending ever! (Full case)
Uploaded by JJMinisodes on Jul 30, 2011
Judge Judy dismisses the complaint against the defendent, Ms. McDaniel, then shortly afterwards reverses herself and awards plaintiff, Ms. Owens, $5000 in damages.
I watched this twice in trying to understand what happened that could have produced this astonishing outcome. In addition, I read over several of the comments in order to get a clue.
Before Judge Judy reverses herself, she asks the defendant, Ms. McDaniel, did she have a suit against the doctor. McDaniel said yes. The answer must have been the deciding point. The issue of how Ms. McDaniel was injured was not forthcoming from the testimony of either McDaniel or Owens, but the question about the suit against the doctor must have decided the judge that it was the doctor who caused the injuries to Ms. McDaniel. That's why McDaniel is suing the doctor, so the claim that the plaintiff attacked Ms. McDaniel was false, evidently.
The rest is easy enough to understand.
The truth is a slippery thing indeed, especially if someone is lying.
Update:
I did have a video up that illustrates the discussion above, but it was taken down. It seems that this happens a lot, so I won't be so careless in the future.
On the other hand, I don't see why it was taken down just because of copyright. Seems to me that this promotes the show and helps them sell their product. Whatever. It's their copyright and they can do what they want with it.
Judge Judy dismisses the complaint against the defendent, Ms. McDaniel, then shortly afterwards reverses herself and awards plaintiff, Ms. Owens, $5000 in damages.
I watched this twice in trying to understand what happened that could have produced this astonishing outcome. In addition, I read over several of the comments in order to get a clue.
Before Judge Judy reverses herself, she asks the defendant, Ms. McDaniel, did she have a suit against the doctor. McDaniel said yes. The answer must have been the deciding point. The issue of how Ms. McDaniel was injured was not forthcoming from the testimony of either McDaniel or Owens, but the question about the suit against the doctor must have decided the judge that it was the doctor who caused the injuries to Ms. McDaniel. That's why McDaniel is suing the doctor, so the claim that the plaintiff attacked Ms. McDaniel was false, evidently.
The rest is easy enough to understand.
The truth is a slippery thing indeed, especially if someone is lying.
Update:
I did have a video up that illustrates the discussion above, but it was taken down. It seems that this happens a lot, so I won't be so careless in the future.
On the other hand, I don't see why it was taken down just because of copyright. Seems to me that this promotes the show and helps them sell their product. Whatever. It's their copyright and they can do what they want with it.
On the subject of natural born citizen
After some thought on the subject, I'd say the Supreme Court needs to review it. Those who are serious about this subject need to find a way to get it before the Court.
Nobody has the right to be President. That would be an impossibility. Therefore, any decision heretofore made on the subject of citizenship isn't enough to answer the questions as to eligibility to be President. It isn't enough to say one is a citizen or a natural born citizen, but whether or not certain classes of people should be President or not.
This doesn't sound fair, but it can't be fair. It is intrinsically unfair. There can be only one President. Not one for each preference nor one for each group. Everybody can't have their own President. Not if you want a single undivided country. Otherwise, you get the Confederacy. Seems like we've been down that road once already.
Update:
Indeed, it isn't a right to govern, but a privilege. The privilege to govern is granted, but not a right to govern.
Nobody has the right to be President. That would be an impossibility. Therefore, any decision heretofore made on the subject of citizenship isn't enough to answer the questions as to eligibility to be President. It isn't enough to say one is a citizen or a natural born citizen, but whether or not certain classes of people should be President or not.
This doesn't sound fair, but it can't be fair. It is intrinsically unfair. There can be only one President. Not one for each preference nor one for each group. Everybody can't have their own President. Not if you want a single undivided country. Otherwise, you get the Confederacy. Seems like we've been down that road once already.
Update:
Indeed, it isn't a right to govern, but a privilege. The privilege to govern is granted, but not a right to govern.
Busy day yesterday, still busy
Posting has been light because I've been busy. Also, I had to do stuff this morning which had to wait for the weekend because I was too busy during the week.
I have some time today, so I can post a little today. Maybe tomorrow too.
I have some time today, so I can post a little today. Maybe tomorrow too.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Very deceptive article on AP
FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn't drop gas price
Comment:
It is striking how these people want to stop something that they say doesn't make any difference. Why not let drilling go forward if it doesn't make any difference? If it really doesn't make any difference, it will be self evident, don't you think? If you remove the barriers that the government sets up, nobody should drill if it really doesn't make any difference.
That claim was used to justify denial of drilling in ANWR and now on public lands. It won't make any difference they say. So, drop the ban and see what happens. Wouldn't hurt to try would it?
What are they afraid of?
So making solar panels will make a difference? Phooey.
You don't need a line by line debunking of this article to know it's false. These people are trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes.
It's the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.
Comment:
It is striking how these people want to stop something that they say doesn't make any difference. Why not let drilling go forward if it doesn't make any difference? If it really doesn't make any difference, it will be self evident, don't you think? If you remove the barriers that the government sets up, nobody should drill if it really doesn't make any difference.
That claim was used to justify denial of drilling in ANWR and now on public lands. It won't make any difference they say. So, drop the ban and see what happens. Wouldn't hurt to try would it?
What are they afraid of?
So making solar panels will make a difference? Phooey.
You don't need a line by line debunking of this article to know it's false. These people are trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes.
President Ronald Reagan 1988 State of the Union
Uploaded by ReaganFoundation on May 8, 2009
Comment
I vividly remember something the President said that night: "We the People" make this country different from all other nations. We the people tell the government what it can do, not the other way around.
I am of the opinion that our current crop of leaders have gotten the idea that this country's founding document no longer applies, and that "We the People" is a quaint thing of the past, as the document itself.
The Government wants to tell us what to do all too often without remembering that their power comes from the people- not from themselves. Our rights are not granted by an act of Congress- but by God.
I believe that. I hope enough people in this country still believe that so that we don't go down the wrong road.
Comment
I vividly remember something the President said that night: "We the People" make this country different from all other nations. We the people tell the government what it can do, not the other way around.
I am of the opinion that our current crop of leaders have gotten the idea that this country's founding document no longer applies, and that "We the People" is a quaint thing of the past, as the document itself.
The Government wants to tell us what to do all too often without remembering that their power comes from the people- not from themselves. Our rights are not granted by an act of Congress- but by God.
I believe that. I hope enough people in this country still believe that so that we don't go down the wrong road.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Romney wins Illinois
No big surprise. It looks like it's "in the bag" for Romney. But that's been true for awhile now, hasn't it?
The talk may turn now towards his VP selection. With the recent post about "natural born citizen", the possibility of a VP Marco Rubio becomes somewhat controversial and makes for some lively discussion.
On the subject of natural born citizen, I've gotten some comments. There's more to the subject than it appeared.
After all, what exactly are we doing when we select a nominee for President? It seems so obvious that it doesn't warrant discussion, but it does in this context of natural born citizen. The discussion implies exclusion, whereas mere citizenship would tend to inclusion. Not everybody can be President, but plenty of people can be citizens. You have to choose only one from very many. Along the way, you can't help but be unfair. For the office is exclusive by nature. There's no getting around that.
You can't have 300 million Presidents. You can have only one. Therefore, some way has to be devised to exclude just about everybody.
The process of exclusion is in the rulebook called the Constitution. Only natural born citizens can be President. But who is a natural born citizen, and why only natural born citizens? Ah, the bone of contention.
Should the pool of candidates be larger or smaller? It could be argued that it should be as small as possible in order for it to be manageable. A large pool of candidates only invites confusion where confusion cannot be tolerated. There cannot be an "undecided" who gets sworn in on January 20th, 2013. There's no such person, of course. The pool of candidates must be manageable or the decision cannot be made in time.
On the subject of natural born citizen, it may well be worth re-reading the Federalist Papers. What did the framers have in mind when they included this language in the Constitution? But I haven't the time to study this in depth.
So I'll go on my instincts for now. I'd say the point is to insure that there were no doubts as to the loyalty to the country. There should not be one ounce of doubt on that subject. Not one. Not even the possibility of one. That should exclude Obama. But of course, that didn't happen. The reason why is one that should make for interesting discussion.
The talk may turn now towards his VP selection. With the recent post about "natural born citizen", the possibility of a VP Marco Rubio becomes somewhat controversial and makes for some lively discussion.
On the subject of natural born citizen, I've gotten some comments. There's more to the subject than it appeared.
After all, what exactly are we doing when we select a nominee for President? It seems so obvious that it doesn't warrant discussion, but it does in this context of natural born citizen. The discussion implies exclusion, whereas mere citizenship would tend to inclusion. Not everybody can be President, but plenty of people can be citizens. You have to choose only one from very many. Along the way, you can't help but be unfair. For the office is exclusive by nature. There's no getting around that.
You can't have 300 million Presidents. You can have only one. Therefore, some way has to be devised to exclude just about everybody.
The process of exclusion is in the rulebook called the Constitution. Only natural born citizens can be President. But who is a natural born citizen, and why only natural born citizens? Ah, the bone of contention.
Should the pool of candidates be larger or smaller? It could be argued that it should be as small as possible in order for it to be manageable. A large pool of candidates only invites confusion where confusion cannot be tolerated. There cannot be an "undecided" who gets sworn in on January 20th, 2013. There's no such person, of course. The pool of candidates must be manageable or the decision cannot be made in time.
On the subject of natural born citizen, it may well be worth re-reading the Federalist Papers. What did the framers have in mind when they included this language in the Constitution? But I haven't the time to study this in depth.
So I'll go on my instincts for now. I'd say the point is to insure that there were no doubts as to the loyalty to the country. There should not be one ounce of doubt on that subject. Not one. Not even the possibility of one. That should exclude Obama. But of course, that didn't happen. The reason why is one that should make for interesting discussion.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Primal Man v. Civilized Man
This video may not last long according to the individual who uploaded it. It is a great dramatic scene that illustrates a conflict that has to be resolved in the heat of the moment. There are no guides, except conscience, which is symbolized in the character played by Ronny Cox. The primal man- with no conscience- is depicted by Burt Reynolds. The man who is symbolic of the conflict itself- as the conflict between morality and primal urges as they rage inside himself- is played by Jon Voight.
I thought the conflict was applicable to our current political situation. You, I, and everyone living may be required to make some fundamental decision about your future. That future may depend on how you deal with morality and the primal forces that morality has to deal with. In this scene, primal forces win. Civilization loses, but nobody but the men involved know about it. The audience is allowed to peer inside the event from the detached view of the screen. We are not in it. But that won't be the case in real life. In real life, you have to make decisions like this one. We are confronted by such a choice now. Will civilization win, or will primal forces win out? So far, real life has proceeded as in the movie.
Not very encouraging.
I thought the conflict was applicable to our current political situation. You, I, and everyone living may be required to make some fundamental decision about your future. That future may depend on how you deal with morality and the primal forces that morality has to deal with. In this scene, primal forces win. Civilization loses, but nobody but the men involved know about it. The audience is allowed to peer inside the event from the detached view of the screen. We are not in it. But that won't be the case in real life. In real life, you have to make decisions like this one. We are confronted by such a choice now. Will civilization win, or will primal forces win out? So far, real life has proceeded as in the movie.
Not very encouraging.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Tiberius syndrome on the prowl
Launch and reentry of SpaceShipTwo from Mojave being considered by FAA h/t behindtheblack
Just another example of why technology may not be allowed to solve our problems after all.
Just another example of why technology may not be allowed to solve our problems after all.
Marco Rubio: I Won't Tell Newt to Drop Out
Free Republic
Comment:
The title suggests one thing, but the comments section of the post reveal something else. Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Neither is Obama. So, should Marco Rubio be on the ticket? If he were to be, the issue will become moot for all time. The Constitution will have been amended in de facto fashion, as opposed to de juris fashion. Should this development be welcomed? My opinion is no- but a discussion of the issue in his case would be most informative. Whether or not the information would make any difference is an altogether different question, however.
Comment:
The title suggests one thing, but the comments section of the post reveal something else. Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen. Neither is Obama. So, should Marco Rubio be on the ticket? If he were to be, the issue will become moot for all time. The Constitution will have been amended in de facto fashion, as opposed to de juris fashion. Should this development be welcomed? My opinion is no- but a discussion of the issue in his case would be most informative. Whether or not the information would make any difference is an altogether different question, however.
Hydrogen power in real life: Clean and energy efficient
sciencedaily h/t EGO OUT
quote:
Comment:
Would economy of scale help this? In the article, a part broke down and had to be replaced. The cost and delivery times were affected by the fact that it was a one of a kind part. If it was mass produced, it may be cheaper. The problem is that it isn't mass produced, which means that it isn't adopted because it is too expensive, which means that it won't be mass produced... Well, it is chicken and egg problem.
Update:
A related post about producing hydrogen for fuel cells using artificial photosynthesis:
quote:
Comment:
No problema! If you've got hydrogen, you can make ammonia. Ammonia can be sent to distribution centers, where it can be electrolyzed back into hydrogen. The "waste" is nitrogen, which simply goes back into the atmosphere from which it came.
The energy source: LFTRs. Another process for making liquid fuels is described here. But if you have the hydrogen on hand, making ammonia using the Haber process comes into play. Having the ammonia in aqueous solution could eliminate the distribution problem altogether.
quote:
Currently a vehicle of this kind is about three times as expensive as a conventional one. On the other hand, the costs of fuel cell systems alone have, over the past few years, dropped by a factor of ten, and the end of this trend is not yet in sight.
Comment:
Would economy of scale help this? In the article, a part broke down and had to be replaced. The cost and delivery times were affected by the fact that it was a one of a kind part. If it was mass produced, it may be cheaper. The problem is that it isn't mass produced, which means that it isn't adopted because it is too expensive, which means that it won't be mass produced... Well, it is chicken and egg problem.
Update:
A related post about producing hydrogen for fuel cells using artificial photosynthesis:
quote:
By 2013, HyperSolar aims to have a prototype that produces hydrogen using nanotechnology and conventional photovoltaic elements. The next obstacle would be creating a fueling infrastructure to provide cars with hydrogen energy.
Comment:
No problema! If you've got hydrogen, you can make ammonia. Ammonia can be sent to distribution centers, where it can be electrolyzed back into hydrogen. The "waste" is nitrogen, which simply goes back into the atmosphere from which it came.
The energy source: LFTRs. Another process for making liquid fuels is described here. But if you have the hydrogen on hand, making ammonia using the Haber process comes into play. Having the ammonia in aqueous solution could eliminate the distribution problem altogether.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Will corporations prevent the Singularity?
kurzweilai.net
quote:
Why would intelligence be presumed to be allowed to exceed the human level? Through artificial intelligence? I think there's a belief system embedded in this way of thinking about this singularity idea. If human intelligence exceeds the current level, those who possess it may well drive the rest who don't into extinction. Think about what happened to the neanderthals. "Old" humans will be replaced by the new species. That may be the thing that prevents the singularity.
quote:
Yet my own intuition is that notions of money and economic exchange will become less relevant as intelligence exceeds the human level. I suspect the importance of money and economic exchange is an artifact of the current domain of relative material scarcity in which we find ourselves, and that once advanced technology (nanotech, femtotech, etc.) radically diminishes material scarcity, the importance of economic thinking will drastically decrease. [emphasis added]Comment:
Why would intelligence be presumed to be allowed to exceed the human level? Through artificial intelligence? I think there's a belief system embedded in this way of thinking about this singularity idea. If human intelligence exceeds the current level, those who possess it may well drive the rest who don't into extinction. Think about what happened to the neanderthals. "Old" humans will be replaced by the new species. That may be the thing that prevents the singularity.
Great quote
from comments section of a Free Republic post:
This goes pretty well with what I've been thinking lately.
"Democracy... is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty ... is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin
This goes pretty well with what I've been thinking lately.
Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause
Uploaded by Acts17Apologetics on Apr 14, 2011
Fight the power!
The powers that be are traitors. Never forget that.
Fight the power!
The powers that be are traitors. Never forget that.
How Romney is like Tiberius and how Gingrich is like Diamandis
This is number 6 of the miscellaneous post series. That post was updated earlier today, by the way.
As mentioned in Peter Diamandis' new book, the Emperor Tiberius of the ancient Roman Empire, had the discoverer of aluminum executed. This delayed the benefits of aluminum to humanity for nearly two millenia.
It cannot be considered an isolated event in history, and may well have its counterparts today.
Consider these developments over the last 50 years:
Gingrich aligns himself with these revolutionary ideas, and is subsequently ridiculed for them. Not because of their impracticality nor for their infeasibility, but for the opposite. The suppression of these revolutionary concepts prevents progress, and we all suffer for it.
Diamandis came up with the X-prize concept, which has scored an important milestone in making space more accessible. He wants to expand upon that concept, and so does Gingrich. On the other hand, Romney wants to discourage innovation, if his ridicule of Newt is any indication. Could it be because these innovations represent a threat to Romney's masters?
As mentioned in Peter Diamandis' new book, the Emperor Tiberius of the ancient Roman Empire, had the discoverer of aluminum executed. This delayed the benefits of aluminum to humanity for nearly two millenia.
It cannot be considered an isolated event in history, and may well have its counterparts today.
Consider these developments over the last 50 years:
- Why hasn't there been any follow up to the Apollo program? The conquest of space suddenly became "too hard" even while technology in general progressed at a rapid rate.
- Why wasn't the nuclear rocket deployed even though the technology for it was at the last step of development before being made operational?
- Why hasn't cold fusion been studied more aggressively? Isn't it because of its revolutionary potential?
- The proof of concept for thorium fuel cycle was demonstrated in the late sixties to early seventies. Why wasn't this developed? Why was an impractical path chosen instead?
- Why has funding been concentrated in expensive tokomak designs for fusion research while simpler and cheaper designs go begging for money?
- Why do environmentalists try to stop all energy development projects, even so called green ones?
Gingrich aligns himself with these revolutionary ideas, and is subsequently ridiculed for them. Not because of their impracticality nor for their infeasibility, but for the opposite. The suppression of these revolutionary concepts prevents progress, and we all suffer for it.
Diamandis came up with the X-prize concept, which has scored an important milestone in making space more accessible. He wants to expand upon that concept, and so does Gingrich. On the other hand, Romney wants to discourage innovation, if his ridicule of Newt is any indication. Could it be because these innovations represent a threat to Romney's masters?
Forgerygate: Ignoring Arpaio's report is a scandal in itself
Times247
quote
Comment:
Is the term "birther" another way of telling the opposition to "shut up"?
There's a story here, but again, this is like the wolf and lamb parable. All the argument in the world won't make any difference as long as the power balance is against you.
If there's one advantage that the "little guy" has, and that is his numbers. There are more of us than of them. If you can mobilize that number, you can overcome the advantage of the "big guys" with the money. Then the sheep can win for a change.
quote
“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”
Comment:
Is the term "birther" another way of telling the opposition to "shut up"?
There's a story here, but again, this is like the wolf and lamb parable. All the argument in the world won't make any difference as long as the power balance is against you.
If there's one advantage that the "little guy" has, and that is his numbers. There are more of us than of them. If you can mobilize that number, you can overcome the advantage of the "big guys" with the money. Then the sheep can win for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)