Saturday, October 26, 2013
If you didn't have to eat real food anymore, this problem might go away. Brave new world, indeed.
I started reading about Nixon this afternoon. About the Watergate scandal and so forth. Nixon did make a critical mistake that cost him the Presidency. It was on the "smoking gun" tape. Instead of ordering an investigation of the break-in, he agreed with the proposition that it should not be investigated. That's what nailed him, for it could be claimed that this was an obstruction of justice. But could that be seen differently? It's possible, I think. Maybe Nixon didn't know how deep the scandal went into his administration. Or maybe he did---but that wasn't proven. Those who are critical of Nixon probably believe he knew all about it. But to me, that doesn't make sense. If he had a vague sense of a rogue element in his administration, he probably thought that was necessary because it was a tough world out there. He felt he needed the rogue element. So, he looked for a way to protect the rogues and it cost him his Presidency.
At the time, I was a teenager, so I was pretty impressionable. I was influenced by the culture. I wanted Nixon's hide. In retrospect, that seems a youthful mistake. For Nixon made a mistake alright, but was it enough of one to result in impeachment and removal from office? Probably not, if it were based upon the evidence known at the time of the act in question. It seemed more serious at the time because more about the break-in was known at the time of the resignation than shortly after the break-in. That's the point in the previous paragraph. By the time Nixon resigned, the story had been in the news for two years non stop. Could Nixon had really known as much about it just a few days after the burglary as the investigation had dug up in two years? I think not. It seemed worse than it really was. What had started out as an error in judgment ( diverting an investigation) ended up as being a criminal act ( obstruction of justice). Partisanship would get Nixon's hide.
There's a lot of talk about how partisan politics is hurting this country. But the partisanship is more on the Democrat side. This pretty much proves it to me. Nixon was to be drawn and quartered. Clinton was to be forgiven---so saith the culture. Both were wrong, but the issues involved were not of the magnitude that was claimed. Yet it is interesting to note that Nixon was forced to leave, while Clinton was not. The cultural power lies with the Democrats.
The GOP knows this and so they don't fight it. I just wonder if that's the best idea. But if Nixon had folded up early, he may have suffered a political setback, but not a political Armageddon. Sometimes fighting may enhance the appetites for revenge. If you fight, you may win. But if you lose, you may lose big time.
Things get pretty crazy sometimes. It seemed so during the Clinton years. Reading about Nixon showed it to me again. Remembering the Bush years, the craziness seem to be super hyper. So, the reaction to Obama may be overdone. Not to go soft here, but history seems to indicate it. The GOP is more reasonable, I suspect. Is it a strength or weakness? A reasonable man doesn't hang out with the the crazy man, as Nixon did. I suspect that there are more crazies on the Democrat side. Yet, there may be an advantage to at least appearing irrational in order to check the opponent. It was said that Nixon employed this tactic successfully during the Vietnam War, but in the end, it may have come back to bite him. Protecting the rogues kept Nixon's crazy into play when he needed to appear reasonable and contrite.
How do you go against the grain and not have it bite you as it did Nixon? As long as the Democrats have this power, the GOP has to tread lightly. That's what Bill Whittle seemed to be getting at. Or so it seems to me now. Reagan was able to do it, which is what should be remembered. You can be successful even in this environment.
You can't change people. They don't necessarily think things through. But you can change your approach. That's what the GOP needs to do. We'd better hope that they can, or otherwise, we will have a one party dictatorship on our hands.
The advantage is that it is easy to prepare, he says.
Anyway, he has his own blog, so if you're interested....
Could we be in a critical state right now? A critical state is defined as:
model of transformative, twice-per-century Maslow Windows that are triggered by “critical states” of the complex global economic system due to self-organization over decades. The last one was in the 1960s — which featured the Apollo Moon program — but Maslow Windows can be traced back 200+ years to Lewis and Clark.We just had a shut down drama which might have been evidence of such a state.
The website discussed another as we almost blundered into---- a war over Syria.
Another way of looking at the shut down drama. Perhaps it was for the best that it ended. The crisis is over for now, at least.
Notice in the quote above how it meshes perfectly with my theory that we hit a high water mark in 1968.
A war may spoil the opening of another Maslow Window which would consist of rapid advances in technology and living standards.
You know, there's really not much there as far as the assassination goes.
It's pretty much open and shut, but the thing that grabs people is that Oswald was killed too. That raises the suspicions and opens the door for the conspiracy theorists.
But the theories go nowhere either, as Oswald cannot be connected to anybody. He was not the kind of guy to be connected. He was about the most disconnected man you could find.
But it is a great story to write about and make plenty of money off it.
I don't want to knock conspiracy theories, though. There are real conspiracies in the world. Who could doubt this? I just don't think this is one of them.
If you wanted to track down a conspiracy, just ask yourself why is it that this country is stuck ( in some categories ) about where it was 40 years ago? Why aren't there colonies on Mars? Why are we still driving cars with internal combustion engines?
The technology exists to change all that. So why doesn't that change? Hmm?
They are barking up the wrong tree with the Kennedy thing. There's bound to be an explanation for why this country is stuck in the sixties with its nuclear technology. There's got to be an explanation for why the country that sent a man to the moon can't get a man into orbit even after spending at the same rate that the money was spent to send men to the moon in the first place.
There's vast wealth in the solar system. Enough to make everybody rich beyond imagination. There's plenty of energy, no energy crisis needs to exist. We've got all we need to make all the energy that we can even imagine finding a use for. But we can't access it. Why not?
Could this conspiracy mongering of the Kennedy assassination really be an attempt to distract people from the real conspiracy to keep us all poor and stupid?
There's no such conspiracy? Well, ask yourself these questions: What if everybody was wealthy? What would it mean to be wealthy when everybody is already wealthy beyond measure?
You'll probably think I'm crazy, but I thought of this while watching Star Trek First Contact. You see, if you had all that type of technology, what would wealth mean? If you could fetch a meal from a device at will, travel through the galaxy at will, transport yourself from space to the Earth at will, what would wealth mean? It would cease to mean anything.
Could it be that the wealthy and powerful can see an end to that status in a future like that?
Friday, October 25, 2013
More on the BEC theory. I read the PDF, in which there's a link to it at the site above.
Could BEC explain the phenomenon which came to be known as cold fusion?
Tough, Conductive Nanotube Threads Could Mean Smart Textiles and Superstrong Wiring | MIT Technology Review
I was at Rice University today and noticed a banner that illustrated this. It was shown as a thread that you'd put through a needle and sew up something. So, I decided to Google it and this article is part of what I found. Interesting.
A little more on the GOP predicament. There is a defeatist tone in it that I don't like. Look, it's not the media. Ronald Reagan won big with a more hostile media than what we've got now. Complaining about the media and the culture is just making excuses.
It's not the media. We've got a faction in the party that doesn't fight back and won't fight back at all.
There's really no excuse for not fighting back. When you don't fight back, you send all kinds of messages to the public, and none of it is good. Even if you fight back and lose, it is better than losing by default. At least you have the chance to win if you make the effort to win. They just won't even try to win.
As Flip Wilson once said--- you have to put a coin in the slot before you can win. In other words, you have to play the game because just showing up expecting to win won win it.
The author repeated the lie about the GOP almost causing a default.
After a month of news coverage focused on an extremist and dysfunctional Republican Party that shut down the government and brought the nation to the brink of defaulting on its debt, the media had found its new scandal: the troubled rollout of the website where uninsured Americans can purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.[ emphasis mine]
There are two problems with the GOP. One is that they won't fight back. Two, that they don't really believe what they claim to believe, for if they did, they would fight back.
Either they start fighting back, or we get rid of them. But that's not happening. They should be screaming about what Limbaugh once called the "biggest lie in American history".
Senator John Cornyn, representing my state, is running some ads on radio. He didn't support Cruz, so now he is trying to claim that he is a conservative. My ass!
If nobody will run against him and primary his ass, then I will not be voting for him in the general election.
Somebody has got to do something. I can do this much. I'd run for Senate myself, but that is an absurd idea.
Just answering the question with data from my own experience, I am starting to trend towards pessimism. I thought that I had arrived when I was in college. But many years later, Iearned otherwise. Limbaugh once advised people to think for themselves. I noted with disgust that I had not. Why had I not really learned? Natural laziness. It is hard work to think, so I would rather not bother.
But it isn't just me. The naural tendency is for people not to think for themselves, as Limbaugh implied.
So people hear a thing, and they accept it as true. That is the case especially if it comes from an authority. This gives authorities a powerful incentive to lie, and the proceed to do just that.
Now the prevailing wisdom is that the GOP shut down the government and almost cost us a catastrophic default. I see that this little prevarication keeps getting repeated over and over again. Yet, if you were to just observe that the GOP tried to fund everything but ObamaCare, how can you blame the GOP alone for the shut down? It takes two to fight, and the Democrats were doing their share. Even worse, if there had been a true default, this kind of thinking would give you the prevailing wisdom that it was because of the GOP. This is absurd.
How can refusing credit cause a default? If you were trying to pay your bills by applying for more credit, and were refused, would this be the cause of your subsequent default? Of course not. So, why should the government be any different when it fails to live within its means? All the GOP did was to quarrel with the Democrats over one item in the budget, and somehow this quarrel causes a default? That's like saying a refusal to buy an expensive item leading to a family quarrel caused a delay in raising their credit card limit.
The credit card being maxxed out did not cause the default in that hypothetical situation. No, the failure to live within ones means did the trick. How does that get to be the GOP's fault? It wouldn't if people thought for themselves. They hear that it was the GOP and then accept that as gospel.
Is it because the lies are coming from authorities? Can people actually think this out for themselves? I am getting more pessimistic all the time.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Let's simplify here. Instead of trying to make a buck before going off to mine our asteroid, let's go there directly.
The reason for this? Too much complexity.
Some additional concerns:
- Using a reflected sunbeam to grow algae 24/7 sounds good, but the additional sunlight may be too much for living things
- The best way to use the reflected sunlight may be to electrify the highway system, but you don't need space solar energy in order to do that. You can use any energy, including fossil. There would still be a pollution concern in this instance, but it would be greatly diminished because of the greatly improved efficiency.
- Other technologies may prove to be better for transportation purposes.
- asteroid identified as 1999JU3 that orbits between Earth and Mars
- Once in position ..., the space cannon will .... fire a 4lb metal projectile into the surface...by acquiring samples .... exposed by the collision, we can ....get ...samples that are less weathered by the space environment
- Hayabusa-2 is the second project to recover particles from deep space and will build on the success of Hayabusa, which in 2010 gathered surface dust from an asteroid and returned to Earth.
Somebody out there is going to mine asteroids some day. That's where this is headed.
The amount of material that can be obtained from space will dwarf anything we can obtain from Earth. Most of Earth is inaccessible to us.
Only thing is that this story's a month old.
May bring his widow up to 100k.
Well, some of the site still works. I decided to check out some numbers in order to get a possible understanding for why certain people may be thinking that this is a good deal. For someone at a poverty level income of 100%, here is what the site says you could expect in terms of premiums and subsidies.
Wow. The government will throw in almost 6k subsidy for someone at the poverty level. But what would the premiums actually be? This says up to 5868 bucks per year. Okay, that's for a silver plan. What about a catastrophic plan only? I looked one up for myself and got this:
Now, if you were at the poverty level and paid only about 20 bucks a month for coverage that is worth ten times as much, you'd say that was a good deal.
But you can't sign on and enroll. Why???
It should be obvious. Even at the catastrophic coverage rates, the government will have to kick in a lot of money to cover people who don't have insurance. That's a lot of money because there are millions who don't have coverage. Where would that money come from?
The government doesn't want to say. They just want to claim that the system doesn't work because they don't want to go on record for spending this kind of money. The public would recoil at this kind of expenditure.
We were told that the shut down hurt the GOP. But wasn't it all about ObamaCare? The GOP got blamed for the shut down, even though they voted to fund every thing other than ObamaCare. So, it just doesn't make sense to blame the GOP for any of this. Not for the shut down, because they voted for funding the government. Not for being opposed to ObamaCare, which even Democrats are shifting positions on.
It makes no sense. Evidently, the signal goes out, and then everybody repeats it as if in a trance. It is the GOP's fault! It is the GOP's fault! Does anybody out there bother to look and see for themselves?
Who decides these things? Who sends out the signal to tell us all what we should think about a certain event? Is it the media? Do they really have that much power over us?
If it all made sense, the signal would go out that this recent shut down mess was all the Democrat's fault for trying to defend ObamaCare, which they no longer feel needs quite so vigorous a defense. In other words, it's all the Democrat's fault.
Or, there would be no signal, and all would know whose fault it really was, and acted accordingly.
No, the signal will remain the same as before. It is the GOP's fault for being opposed for what the Democrats are also opposed to, evidently. Certain Democrats fear that they will lose an election for supporting something they opposed just a little over a week ago.
Beam me up Scotty! No intelligent life here!
This website has a history of inflation data going back to 1914.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
It is amazing that the list isn't longer. Not only that, the ones on the list don't seem in that much danger of a primary challenge.
There's just not that much organized resistance. That surprises the hell out of me. I'd a thought that there would be a massive uprising after that debacle.
Very interesting. Perhaps I could seek this crowd funding.
Sure, ObamaCare enforcement funding was made available, but not the massive subsidies that will have to be paid out.
For a family of four at the poverty level, to insure all of them would cost PLENTY big bucks, kemosabe. Where will they get this money? The GOP isn't gonna give it to them. That's not what the shut down was about. The shut down was about enforcement of the mandate.
So, Obama is holding back the funding issue for later. Probably around election time in order to get his troops fired up. Having to pay a fine for not signing up is just gonna get a lot of people pissed off. Who will they blame? Obama is making them pay the fines. But the GOP is denying the funds for the subsidies.
What a clusterf*)k.
Is he out of touch with reality, or is he just lying?
Maybe you can call him "Bagdad Bob" or Joe Isuzu.
You can't sign up for Obamacare. Plain and simple, it doesn't work. You can quote a zillion statistics, but the fact remains, it doesn't work. He knows it, but don't let the truth get in the way of a story.
How do you explain the apparent success of this? Perhaps people believe what's on TV. People believe what an authority figure says. Obama could lie his butt off, but some people are going to believe it anyway.
Look, the very people who should be Obama's biggest supporters can't use the service that is tailor made for them. Why should Obama be popular with these people right now? It doesn't make sense unless people are believing these lies. Republicans fault? How? If anybody believes it is anybody's fault but the people running it, they are falling for the lies. Evidently a lot are, because Obama should have no credibility on this issue at all.
It may not be Obama who is out of touch with reality. He sees the "tanks" the same way Bagdad Bob did. What he is counting on is for people to believe everything he says. As long as he continues fibbing, it must be working for him. The tanks are really there, and there aren't "more seats than the Astrodome" in that "car" he's selling.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
This would involve reflecting light from outer space onto a generating station on the ground. The generating station would concentrate the sunlight and make electricity using Stirling engines. It would be a solar dish design. There would be enough solar dishes installed so that a generating station could make a gigawatt or so of electricity.
The electricity would be dedicated for the highways. It would be routed to rails embedded in the highway, but the electricity would make an electromagnet. It would form the basis of a generator that a vehicle would carry that would be rotated inside of it to generate the electricity for a vehicle.
Here's a pic snatched from the HowStuffWorks webpage
It isn't shown by this pic the way it would be done, so try to imagine the turning part rotated 90 degrees so that it rolls in the direction of movement. The movement is provided by the moving automobile. What if it isn't moving? Then no electricity is being generated. You need a battery backup for those situations. While the vehicle is moving fast enough, the battery gets recharged while the vehicle moves ahead.
It is made this way so that when it rains, the water can be drained off so as to not create a short circuit.
The rotating part will fit into the rail when requested by the controller on the auto. It will seek the rail and then it will position itself within the rail correctly. When a lane change is desired, the mechanism will be pulled out, which enables the lane change. The battery backup will power the auto until the power is reconnected in the next lane.
The matter of control can be a troublesome issue. Not all lane changes are planned. Emergencies can happen and so forth. The system may need a bit of work.
With the backup battery supplying up to 50 miles or so of driving, an individual could have a lot of freedom to roam about before having to charge up somewhere. Lots of places could be accessed this way.
An important aspect of this idea may be impractical. Instead of generating electricity on the auto, let the rails be electrified, and safety would be ensured by properly insulating them.
This will be a new series. Next post here.
Naturally, I'd like to have an excuse to do this so that the big mirror could be used as a solar sail for that mining expedition.
I was wondering if you could recharge one of these at highway speeds. Then, you recharge without stopping.
I was thinking of solar dishes that could provide electricity to the grid. Here's something that works off the grid.
So, Morris spends a lot of time rebutting Obama on the subject of his ObamaCare. Why does the GOP need to repair damage if they tried to stop this thing? Shouldn't the Democrats be the ones who have to repair the damage for protecting a law that is as bad as this one is?
It doesn't make sense.
Healthcare.gov PR solution: Blame technological arsonists, computer code terrorists and suicide programmers
If there are 5 million lines of code in this website, they aren't going to get it fixed very quickly. Think months, if not years.
What a clusterf*#k.
Why couldn't the GOP stop this?
Paging Dick Morris, Paging Dick Morris, Paging Dick Morris.....
Big, small, short, tall, male and female, all mammals pee for an average of 21 seconds, according to researchers....How did they determine this?
By watching endless videos of animals peeing - on YouTube.
You gotta love this. Here we are, up to our keisters in debt, and researchers on the government dime have nothing better to do than to watch "endless videos" on YouTube of animals peeing .
Beam me up Scotty! No intelligent life here!!!
What about the average American mom and dad just trying to stay afloat in the disastrous Obama economy? We don’t have the funds to throw “protection money” at the political extortionists in Washington who are eager to foist things like Obamacare on us. Only Obama’s union cronies and members of the permanent political class are given Obamacare waivers and spared the pain of the policies D.C. inflicts on the rest of us. Big business got an Obamacare exemption that Obama refuses to give ordinary individuals who can’t even sign up for Obamacare on the broken exchange websites, but they’ll still be fined for not doing so!
That is what politics schmolitics is all about. They do not serve the people, but they do serve themselves. At our expense, I might add.
All I know is that I can't even sign up for their healthcare that they imposed upon me. Yet there aren't enough politicians in the GOP who were willing to stand up and stop this thing. What's the GOP good for if they can't stop something like this? Could it be that too many of them are exactly like what Palin has described in this article? That is, too many RINOS.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Still thinking about this topic. When I left off last time, I figured that getting the government to do this is probably unlikely. It will have to be private sector and it will probably need something to hang your hat on, so to speak, to finance the startup of this thing.
Well, a thought came to me today, and there may be a way to do it. Essentially, the space sail utilizes a mirror. The mirror bounces the light off of it and that creates a reaction just as fuel does when it is burned in a rocket. The thing about light is that the momentum of the photons is much less than that of matter. So, you need lots of photons in order to generate any thrust worth mentioning. That is why solar sails have to be so large. There's momentum in a photon, but not much. Since there's so little momentum, we can utilize the mirror to bounce the light back towards the surface of the earth. Thus, we can use the mirror to make money on the ground before we take off for the asteroid.
By utilizing the sunlight from the space sail, we can speed up the growth of an agricultural product, or we can just make seaweed for biofuels. The sale of the biofuels will make money for the enterprise. It also occurred to me that if you were to sell carbon credits in a country that has a carbon market, you may be able to pick up some additional change.
I figure that within a few years of operating it as a biofuel making device, there will be enough earnings to outfit the space sail for its trip to the asteroid. Getting the thing up there and built will take one rocket launch, most likely a Falcon heavy launch. The rest of the equipment and construction will take a second launch. The cost of two launches--- about half a billion.
Come to think of it, that's a lot of biofuel. If you made a dollar a gallon, that be a half a billion gallons. You'd have to obtain this from a patch of sea of 4 square kilometers. Well, I figure the biofuels are worth more than the electricity would be worth, and it can produce enough electricity. If it can produce enough electricity, I figure the biofuels would be enough. It's a guess though, and the guess may be wrong.
The guess is wrong, most likely. After some time to run the numbers, the amount of biomass that might be obtained this way will not yield enough revenue to make this plan work. Evidently, biofuels are less efficient than photovoltaic cells. That surprises me a bit.
A couple more points. Seaweed is considered a type of algae. So, in the numbers mentioned in the update above, the output from seaweed could be much higher. Secondly, this source claims an output that might be worth considering. That would be true even without the advantage of a space mirror which would turn production into a 24/7 proposition. Bottom line: don't rule it out yet.
What's with the title? What's this Dead Zone stuff, an allusion to a Steven King novel? Throw in the reference to the Burt Reynolds movie and it looks like a double ripoff. Yeah, well I have to do something to get your attention. Very funny. Ha, ha. Funnier than a barrel of Congresscritters.
Actually, the title is reference to The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone --- where nothing lives. The Deliverance part is a proposed solution that is a speculation alert. Why? Because I don't know if it will work, or even if it could work, whether or not our corrupt system will actually allow a solution to a problem to be implemented.
The idea is to grow seaweed in the Dead Zone. Harvest the seaweed and make biofuels out of it. Eventually, the drop-in biofuels could be converted to hydrogen for fuel cells. You kill two birds with one stone. Eliminate the Dead Zone and lick the global warming "problem". Throw in energy security as a bonus. What's not to like? Heck, you could create a lot of jobs and economic growth with this. Only a Congresscritter could hate it.
Let's look at the Gulf shall we? First of all, consider its typography---depth of the Gulf of Mexico. The Dead Zone lies directly offshore on the shallow shelf area. A good place to put something there if it requires a shallow body of water. Here's some more info on Gulf of Mexico pollution via Wikipedia. I figured that since algae already grows there in this Dead Zone, you could substitute the seaweed and force the red tide out of the picture. Voila! End of red tides and the Dead Zone.
You would need a massive public works project to implement the idea. The shelf areas of the Gulf are probably not conducive to the growth of seaweed, so you may have to add something to the shelf that the seaweed can attach to. That is, seaweed clings to rocks, but the bottom of the Gulf is sandy. Replace the sand with rocks or something else, like chicken wire perhaps?
You could start small and work your way up. Perhaps the 8000 square mile area could be divvied up amongst entrepreneurs parcel-by-parcel until the entire Dead Zone is covered in seaweed farms.
This isn't necessarily a novel idea. They do a lot of this in Asia, as noted in an earlier post. Here's a few links on the subject that I "dredged up" ( pardon the pun) on the subject.
This thing appears to work on wood chips. How do you get enough wood chips? Chop down all the forests?
Here's a suggestion. You can reflect sunlight from space on to the ground. This will enable plant growth 24/7. If you shine sunlight upon a stand of trees, they will grow much faster. Fast enough to harvest on a regular basis.
Chop down those trees and you could replace them fast enough to make a system like this work.
As for the space part, it would be the simplest system imaginable. Just a mirror positioned so that it reflects sunlight from space on to the ground. No moving parts. Simple construction.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
A comprehensive plan to build a colony in space from lunar materials.
This study was done in the seventies and sponsored by NASA.
After reading some of it, there appears to be some complications. The amount of mass needed presents a problem because there's so much of it. Who would pay for this?
I don't mean to be critical, but if it isn't profitable, it probably won't ever be done.