I did once I started writing about liberals. Yep, that'll ruin your day in a hurry. I'm being a bit facetious here. I'm not bothered by it, but I'm sure some of the snowflakes that might be lurking about may be a bit discomfited by it.
Now that those of you who are liberals are forewarned, you can now retreat to your safe zones. That way, you don't have to be bothered by the knuckle dragging, mouth breathing Neanderthal with whom you cannot be bothered to have a debate. That's because you, being that special, special snowflake that you are, are so much better. Of course you are.
The thing I wanted to write about is a word. It is called "catechism". As I noted in the last post, liberals have to believe certain things in order to be a liberal. And Christians too. Not necessarily the same things, though. In fact, if you are a liberal, most likely you aren't a Christian. That's because if you still are a Christian and a liberal, something's dreadfully wrong. The two just don't go together. That's because the catechisms don't match up.
Actually, I don't know what the catechism is with Christians, and I'm not so sure about liberalism either. I have to infer from what I can observe. I won't do it with Christianity, because I'm not trying to bury Christianity, nor to praise it. Can't say the same thing about liberals though.
From the film Brave New World, I observed that the fictional place had the catechism of Community, Identity, and Stability. A catechism, is---" a series of fixed questions, answers, or precepts used for instruction in other situations". I would link to that definition, but that includes other info that I would just as soon not include. I'm most interested in the precepts. Maybe I'll just refer to them as premises instead. My Neanderthal brain can't handle those fancy words.
This gives a working basis that may help in identifying just exactly what a liberal is. Tough job, but somebody's gotta do it. Can you reduce liberalism to just three words? I don't know, but I know one word that applies to them. What is that? Equality. Boy, do liberals believe in that. They believe in it as long as it doesn't apply to themselves, of course. That's because they are just so special little snowflakes, yes they are.
Ah, another pops up in my brain. It is untruth. No, not truth, but untruth. If the liberals find anything that is true, it is like holy water to the Devil. The run from it as fast as they can. That's how they can embrace something like post modernism, which denies that there is any such thing as truth. For the liberal to see truth would be a miracle that would rival the Resurrection itself. For the liberal to see truth, they'd have to be born all over again. What a concept!
Finally, the last word is peace. The liberals love that word, but they sure don't know how to find it. Sort of like truth. Only they really want peace. Oh, they do, they do, they do. But as sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, the liberals will never find it. That because of the second part of the catechism, which is about untruth. You can't find peace without truth, and the liberals just can't see truth for what it really is. That is why they are liberals.
You can always hope that liberals will see the light, but don't bet the farm on it.
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.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Democrats have to believe certain things, or they can't be Democrats anymore
How to respond to stuff that the left says? The Mahablog has something posted on her blog that supposedly explains the appeal of Donald Trump.
Supposedly, the "masses" are all the same. The left lumps everybody in the same mold.
I've been over it more than once why I support Trump. Evidently those on the left cannot accept explanations like that. It has to be that I'm a racist, homophobic bigot that just cannot accept a black man as POTUS. All Trump supporters are the same.
This line of reasoning strikes me as a fairly tale that the left has to tell themselves so that they can keep on believing in themselves.
If you really want to distill the appeal of Trump down to its core part, then do this: recognize that the left is a failure, and that we want, need, and deserve something better than this for ourselves.
The Dems cannot admit failure, so they have to dream up their fairy tales so that they can keep on being Democrats. If they recognized the truth, they'd have to become something better, which is really what they need to do.
Supposedly, the "masses" are all the same. The left lumps everybody in the same mold.
I've been over it more than once why I support Trump. Evidently those on the left cannot accept explanations like that. It has to be that I'm a racist, homophobic bigot that just cannot accept a black man as POTUS. All Trump supporters are the same.
This line of reasoning strikes me as a fairly tale that the left has to tell themselves so that they can keep on believing in themselves.
If you really want to distill the appeal of Trump down to its core part, then do this: recognize that the left is a failure, and that we want, need, and deserve something better than this for ourselves.
The Dems cannot admit failure, so they have to dream up their fairy tales so that they can keep on being Democrats. If they recognized the truth, they'd have to become something better, which is really what they need to do.
Traveling Wilburys (Harrison, Orbison, Dylan, Petty, Lynne, Keltner) - End of the Line - HQ
I was in the Supermarket and the elevator music had on an interesting song that wanted to look up and embed here on the blog. But I couldn't find it. Instead, I found this one. Not too bad, so I'll use it until I find the other one.
Oops! Can't embed, so I'll just have to link.
Found another version that will allow embedding:
Update:
Here it is, doggone it.
Oops! Can't embed, so I'll just have to link.
Found another version that will allow embedding:
Update:
Here it is, doggone it.
New Year's Resolutions
This hasn't been done on this blog, I don't think. (Pause, after reflecting upon that for awhile. Looking up what I did last year on the blog at this time of year. )
Hmm. I've returned now. Some interesting things popped up on my screen when I went back into time.
One thing I forgotten about is that I stopped doing "Best of" posts. It may reflect something of a resignation to failure to gaining an audience. It was a promotional thing. Well, one thing you gotta do is promote. But I don't like that. If it is good enough, it should be recognized. Yeah, true enough. I think the blog is better than the audience numbers suggest. A lot better, in fact.
Do I add "promote the blog more" to my resolutions? Meh. I don't know. I'm not great at keeping resolutions, and I wasn't into resolutions on this blog anyway. I know, I just checked it.
Do I start with making New Year's Resolutions and then checking back next year and see how I did?
Yes! That's number one.
Okay, and number two is to start promoting the blog a little better. Like doing "Best of" compilations. Maybe that will help the declining audience stats.
Number three is easy, because if I don't, there may not be another New Year's Eve for yours truly. I need to take better care of my health. That means losing weight, getting more exercise, watching my health issues more closely. Yes, and get thee hence to a doctor, which I haven't done since March 2015. Yep, I'm late with a doctor visit. Partly because of ObamaCare's screwups. It might be happening again.
Number four is to keep on keeping on. This may sound too vague, but I do have this tendency to give up when things don't seem to be going well. The thought of quitting this blog has intruded upon my thoughts, but that would be a mistake.
So, look for me to around for at least another year. I know you snowflakes are really going to like that. Bwah, hah, hah!
Hmm. I've returned now. Some interesting things popped up on my screen when I went back into time.
One thing I forgotten about is that I stopped doing "Best of" posts. It may reflect something of a resignation to failure to gaining an audience. It was a promotional thing. Well, one thing you gotta do is promote. But I don't like that. If it is good enough, it should be recognized. Yeah, true enough. I think the blog is better than the audience numbers suggest. A lot better, in fact.
Do I add "promote the blog more" to my resolutions? Meh. I don't know. I'm not great at keeping resolutions, and I wasn't into resolutions on this blog anyway. I know, I just checked it.
Do I start with making New Year's Resolutions and then checking back next year and see how I did?
Yes! That's number one.
Okay, and number two is to start promoting the blog a little better. Like doing "Best of" compilations. Maybe that will help the declining audience stats.
Number three is easy, because if I don't, there may not be another New Year's Eve for yours truly. I need to take better care of my health. That means losing weight, getting more exercise, watching my health issues more closely. Yes, and get thee hence to a doctor, which I haven't done since March 2015. Yep, I'm late with a doctor visit. Partly because of ObamaCare's screwups. It might be happening again.
Number four is to keep on keeping on. This may sound too vague, but I do have this tendency to give up when things don't seem to be going well. The thought of quitting this blog has intruded upon my thoughts, but that would be a mistake.
So, look for me to around for at least another year. I know you snowflakes are really going to like that. Bwah, hah, hah!
New Years Eve: Reviewing 2015 on Boots and Oil Blog
One feature that I added a couple years back was a "Predictions" category. So, I just now went back to September and looked at my predictions.
One thing that I should do is to upgrade my predictions a bit. They are too vague to be predictions.
However, those are interesting and thought provoking posts. At least they are to me. Maybe not my audience, huh? What audience? lol You know you little snowflakes out there are tougher than you look. I feel like Rodney Dangerfield here. I can't get no respect.
One thing that caused the pause in the review process was that I contradicted a prediction made earlier.
What good are predictions if you contradict yourself?
But, the thing to remember that predictions are hard, especially about the future. So said Yogi Berra.
One thing that I should do is to upgrade my predictions a bit. They are too vague to be predictions.
However, those are interesting and thought provoking posts. At least they are to me. Maybe not my audience, huh? What audience? lol You know you little snowflakes out there are tougher than you look. I feel like Rodney Dangerfield here. I can't get no respect.
One thing that caused the pause in the review process was that I contradicted a prediction made earlier.
What good are predictions if you contradict yourself?
But, the thing to remember that predictions are hard, especially about the future. So said Yogi Berra.
A bit of speculation yields one more reason to be optimistic about SpaceX
Speculation alert: The following contains a bit of speculation, as I don't have the information about how SpaceX recovered its first stage recently.
If you followed SpaceX's progress over the years, you may have watched the video which illustrates their method to reuse the first stage. The rocket flips and then fires retro to its movement. This would eventually cause the rocket to slow down and then move in the opposite direction back to the launch site. I think this is incorrect, from a technical standpoint.
What really happens, or should happen, is that gravity will stop the rocket eventually, so why use precious fuel? However, the rocket isn't going straight up anymore, as it has gone downrange a considerable distance. Some fuel may have to get expended in order to send the rocket back into vertical climbing mode, and then letting gravity bring it to a stop.
Once the rocket is climbing vertical, it should lose velocity rather quickly. By the time it does, it will be almost in space. In fact, from what I heard, it is already in space when it begins its journey back to the launch site. This is important in terms of not having the aerodynamic pressure against the nozzles. In space, there would be no atmosphere, and therefore, no pressure against the nozzles.
As the rocket slows, it can begin to move into position to flip, and then it will fire again. At this point, it is just doing what it has already done. The main challenge is to hit a second target with the accuracy required.
Accuracy in rocketry is a problem that has been solved for a long time. I remember reading about this during the Cold War, as America's rockets were said to be more accurate than the Soviets rockets. If this has been already perfected for decades, then hitting a spot on the ground could not be that big of a deal. The rocket just executes mostly what it already demonstrated by getting to where it already was.
The main accomplishment then is just to get the thing to flip without damaging any components. Since the rocket is moving rather slowly in space at this point, the danger is minimal.
The last part of landing the rocket had been practiced with the so-called Grasshopper rocket tests. There's some discussion about how the rocket was guided, but it seems to me that the rocket's ability to compensate for wind is minimal. Mostly, it is like how a military payload is delivered in war. Whatever adjustments it needs to make would have to be limited. It is just a dead weight hurtling downward to crash land to a precise spot, but the crash is averted at the last moment by firing the rockets to slow its descent.
Judging from what I have read, the rockets don't use gimbaling to adjust for wind. Gimbaling the rocket nozzles would change the direction of force to compensate for the wind moving the rocket around. Perhaps some other technique was employed?
Since there is some legitimate concern about retro firing of the rockets, one presumes that the rocket would not be allowed to gain too much speed. The engines could be fired as a brake to prevent it from going too fast. Since it must do that, I speculate, I'm guessing that rocket didn't have to undergo that much stress on the descent.
Much of the discoloration observed was most likely superheated atmosphere that scorched the side of the rocket. This might be of some concern, but if the rocket survived, most likely it didn't cause much damage, except to the paint job.
Therefore, the rocket and its engines should be in good shape. The chance of flying again with minimal refurbishing should be pretty good.
If you followed SpaceX's progress over the years, you may have watched the video which illustrates their method to reuse the first stage. The rocket flips and then fires retro to its movement. This would eventually cause the rocket to slow down and then move in the opposite direction back to the launch site. I think this is incorrect, from a technical standpoint.
What really happens, or should happen, is that gravity will stop the rocket eventually, so why use precious fuel? However, the rocket isn't going straight up anymore, as it has gone downrange a considerable distance. Some fuel may have to get expended in order to send the rocket back into vertical climbing mode, and then letting gravity bring it to a stop.
Once the rocket is climbing vertical, it should lose velocity rather quickly. By the time it does, it will be almost in space. In fact, from what I heard, it is already in space when it begins its journey back to the launch site. This is important in terms of not having the aerodynamic pressure against the nozzles. In space, there would be no atmosphere, and therefore, no pressure against the nozzles.
As the rocket slows, it can begin to move into position to flip, and then it will fire again. At this point, it is just doing what it has already done. The main challenge is to hit a second target with the accuracy required.
Accuracy in rocketry is a problem that has been solved for a long time. I remember reading about this during the Cold War, as America's rockets were said to be more accurate than the Soviets rockets. If this has been already perfected for decades, then hitting a spot on the ground could not be that big of a deal. The rocket just executes mostly what it already demonstrated by getting to where it already was.
The main accomplishment then is just to get the thing to flip without damaging any components. Since the rocket is moving rather slowly in space at this point, the danger is minimal.
The last part of landing the rocket had been practiced with the so-called Grasshopper rocket tests. There's some discussion about how the rocket was guided, but it seems to me that the rocket's ability to compensate for wind is minimal. Mostly, it is like how a military payload is delivered in war. Whatever adjustments it needs to make would have to be limited. It is just a dead weight hurtling downward to crash land to a precise spot, but the crash is averted at the last moment by firing the rockets to slow its descent.
Judging from what I have read, the rockets don't use gimbaling to adjust for wind. Gimbaling the rocket nozzles would change the direction of force to compensate for the wind moving the rocket around. Perhaps some other technique was employed?
Since there is some legitimate concern about retro firing of the rockets, one presumes that the rocket would not be allowed to gain too much speed. The engines could be fired as a brake to prevent it from going too fast. Since it must do that, I speculate, I'm guessing that rocket didn't have to undergo that much stress on the descent.
Much of the discoloration observed was most likely superheated atmosphere that scorched the side of the rocket. This might be of some concern, but if the rocket survived, most likely it didn't cause much damage, except to the paint job.
Therefore, the rocket and its engines should be in good shape. The chance of flying again with minimal refurbishing should be pretty good.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
FuturePundit: We Are Still Not In The Space Age ( not so fast )
FuturePundit: h/t Instapundit
comment:
I am tempted to be critical here, just a little. The big deal here is that space refueling may get enabled now. If you deliver fuel to space for $250 lb, that means for the amount of fuel for the Saturn IV that powered the lunar landing and return capsule, you'd have the rocket and the main mass, the fuel, costing only a little over $50 million to deliver it.
It currently doesn't make much sense to deliver fuel, but if you use one reusable rocket to deliver 10 loads of fuel, it starts to make sense. A Falcon Heavy can deliver about half as much as a Saturn V. Ten Falcon Heavy launches can deliver 5 times as much as one Saturn V.
If a rocket deployed permanently in space is also reusable, you could make a trip to the moon for what it now takes just to launch to Low Earth Orbit. This could make the moon routinely reachable. Repeat the same process by setting up refueling bases on the moon, which you can now reach frequently, ( provided that this works ) and then Mars becomes accessible.
What makes me hold back a bit on the criticism is that it hasn't been proven yet. You still need to prove that it can be done, as well as space refueling.
comment:
I am tempted to be critical here, just a little. The big deal here is that space refueling may get enabled now. If you deliver fuel to space for $250 lb, that means for the amount of fuel for the Saturn IV that powered the lunar landing and return capsule, you'd have the rocket and the main mass, the fuel, costing only a little over $50 million to deliver it.
It currently doesn't make much sense to deliver fuel, but if you use one reusable rocket to deliver 10 loads of fuel, it starts to make sense. A Falcon Heavy can deliver about half as much as a Saturn V. Ten Falcon Heavy launches can deliver 5 times as much as one Saturn V.
If a rocket deployed permanently in space is also reusable, you could make a trip to the moon for what it now takes just to launch to Low Earth Orbit. This could make the moon routinely reachable. Repeat the same process by setting up refueling bases on the moon, which you can now reach frequently, ( provided that this works ) and then Mars becomes accessible.
What makes me hold back a bit on the criticism is that it hasn't been proven yet. You still need to prove that it can be done, as well as space refueling.
ObamaCare Blues
I've had the Mooshot blues, so why not the ObamaCare blues? What a pain in the neck this is. It got screwed up last year and it looks like it is screwed up again.
I would say something about the GOP, but you've probably read it before on this blog.
Hopefully, this isn't going to be too big of a pain in the ass. I don't know how much my old ass can handle any more.
Besides fooling around with the ObamaCare blues, I organized my tax records a little better. Organization isn't exactly one of my strong suits. What this means is my shoebox isn't quite as jumbled as it was a few hours ago. Yay me.
If I had any musical inclinations, I would write and perform a blues song. Maybe embed instead a Hank Williams "Lovesick Blues" will do in a pinch.
"Ain't nobody's Sugar Daddy now", indeed.
I would say something about the GOP, but you've probably read it before on this blog.
Hopefully, this isn't going to be too big of a pain in the ass. I don't know how much my old ass can handle any more.
Besides fooling around with the ObamaCare blues, I organized my tax records a little better. Organization isn't exactly one of my strong suits. What this means is my shoebox isn't quite as jumbled as it was a few hours ago. Yay me.
If I had any musical inclinations, I would write and perform a blues song. Maybe embed instead a Hank Williams "Lovesick Blues" will do in a pinch.
"Ain't nobody's Sugar Daddy now", indeed.
Weird day
Seems like I am busy , but nothing is getting done.
Okay, let's go over what I have done.
Currently, I am typing in this post using my tablet. I fixed up a stand, so that the "screen" can lean back, like a laptop. It isn't in my lap, because that doesn't work. What does work is to put it on a flat surface, and then type. Still hunt and peck, which slows down my typing.
Prior to this, I updated my desktop, which I seldom use. I need to use it, obviously.
I deleted a few files on my old youtube account. I may use that channel again, by the way.
While fooling around with my youtube account, I found my old friend's channel and posted a video here.
Which gets me back to how I started today: thinking about arrangements out west. This has not been resolved. I need to figure out something soon: stay here or move. The odds are that I will stay here. But if I feel confident enough, I will move. That's unlikely, maybe a 10 percent chance.
Oh, almost forgot. Dick Morris has some videos up that make it look like Hillary won't be the nominee for POTUS.
Now, I'll post this thing and get on the next thing.
Okay, let's go over what I have done.
Currently, I am typing in this post using my tablet. I fixed up a stand, so that the "screen" can lean back, like a laptop. It isn't in my lap, because that doesn't work. What does work is to put it on a flat surface, and then type. Still hunt and peck, which slows down my typing.
Prior to this, I updated my desktop, which I seldom use. I need to use it, obviously.
I deleted a few files on my old youtube account. I may use that channel again, by the way.
While fooling around with my youtube account, I found my old friend's channel and posted a video here.
Which gets me back to how I started today: thinking about arrangements out west. This has not been resolved. I need to figure out something soon: stay here or move. The odds are that I will stay here. But if I feel confident enough, I will move. That's unlikely, maybe a 10 percent chance.
Oh, almost forgot. Dick Morris has some videos up that make it look like Hillary won't be the nominee for POTUS.
Now, I'll post this thing and get on the next thing.
Sidecar shuts down
May have been the first of its kind rideshare companies-- like Uber.
The picture on their website reminds me of the song "San Francisco".
Don't jump off that bridge without a parachute. It's a long way down.
The picture on their website reminds me of the song "San Francisco".
Don't jump off that bridge without a parachute. It's a long way down.
The Jaggerz - The Rapper - 45 RPM
There must have been a groove in that last song that reminded me of this one. So I searched it on the YouTube and found it.
Always did like this song.
Always did like this song.
Ode To The Bayou City
High school classmate made this video. He doesn't seem to hold it in high esteem, but I think it's kinda cool.
What cha' think? Or am I asking bots?
Getting more than what you bargained for
The title to the post is one of those idiomatic expressions in English that says you might have made a mistake when there wasn't an obvious risk of that when you made your original decision. Han Solo said that in the original Star Wars movie when he took on passengers Obi-wan and Luke Skywalker. Yep, I got more than what I bargained for, and more could be on the way.
Such now appears to be the case with my "Moonshot". When I made the decision to buy the land, it didn't seem like that big of a deal. But now, it is becoming something of a problem.
I had no idea that it would cost so much for that last trip in April. I haven't been back since. Prior to that, I had made 4 trips. So, it is quite obvious to me now that I wasn't expecting to spend so much, and accomplish so little. It was indeed becoming obvious that a single day trip wasn't worthwhile, but staying for 12 days was too expensive. Is there a happy medium?
That's the stuff I've learned so far, but there could be more. It is almost like I regret my decision. However, if it would be a workable idea, a big smile would come across my face that would make it all worthwhile.
Yes, I'm having doubts. I don't know if I can solve the problems ahead of me. It really is a personal test of some kind. I expected certain problems, but these aren't really the big problems that I thought they'd be. The bigger problems weren't obvious to me at the time.
Such now appears to be the case with my "Moonshot". When I made the decision to buy the land, it didn't seem like that big of a deal. But now, it is becoming something of a problem.
I had no idea that it would cost so much for that last trip in April. I haven't been back since. Prior to that, I had made 4 trips. So, it is quite obvious to me now that I wasn't expecting to spend so much, and accomplish so little. It was indeed becoming obvious that a single day trip wasn't worthwhile, but staying for 12 days was too expensive. Is there a happy medium?
That's the stuff I've learned so far, but there could be more. It is almost like I regret my decision. However, if it would be a workable idea, a big smile would come across my face that would make it all worthwhile.
Yes, I'm having doubts. I don't know if I can solve the problems ahead of me. It really is a personal test of some kind. I expected certain problems, but these aren't really the big problems that I thought they'd be. The bigger problems weren't obvious to me at the time.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Don't look now, but Trump may win in a landslide
What is the basis of such a speculation? It comes from none other than the 538 site that I linked to awhile back. Also, a poll, which claims that Trump could get 40% of the black vote and 45% of the latino vote.
That seems like a big stretch, but maybe not. Considering that Trump is running something of a populist campaign, his appeal could result in a big victory that includes non-college educated whites, blacks, and latinos.
Testing that theory, I plugged in turnout numbers and voting percentages that came close to the poll. What the poll didn't indicate is turnout, so I played with that number a bit. The numbers I used were the following:
That seems like a big stretch, but maybe not. Considering that Trump is running something of a populist campaign, his appeal could result in a big victory that includes non-college educated whites, blacks, and latinos.
Testing that theory, I plugged in turnout numbers and voting percentages that came close to the poll. What the poll didn't indicate is turnout, so I played with that number a bit. The numbers I used were the following:
- college educated whites vote in same percentage, but turnout falls to non-college educated whites
- non-college educate whites vote in same percentage, but turnout rises to college educated whites
- blacks 61-39% in favor of Dems, but with turnout of college educated whites
- latinos 57-43% in favor of Dems with turnout the same
- asians unchanged
results Trump wins with 53.3% of the vote and 322 electoral votes.
Thus, a populist campaign can win. It would rely upon the demographic breakdowns that were in the poll, and a smattering perhaps of wishful thinking. The wishful thinking relates to how this poll stacks up to anything in the real world.
If Trump is actually doing better than this poll, especially amongst whites, it's a landslide.
House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam | Frontpage Mag
House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam | Frontpage Mag
comment:
Here's a possible reason why Trump is ahead in the polls. Why? Democrats threaten to punish dissent, but Trump throws it right back.
If only the GOP would fight back, but they don't. Here's what they should be saying:
Did you see where Bush is positing himself as a tough guy standing up to Trump? Bush calls Trump a bully. One commenter noted that only sissified men called another man a bully. Most of the commenters were laughing at Bush. No, Bush ain't no tough guy.
When I read this piece, I really felt bad for this country.
comment:
Here's a possible reason why Trump is ahead in the polls. Why? Democrats threaten to punish dissent, but Trump throws it right back.
If only the GOP would fight back, but they don't. Here's what they should be saying:
"It took blood to make this country. It will take blood to unmake it. You do this over our dead bodies".Yeah, they should say it, and mean it. But, of course they won't. That's why they aren't doing too well against Trump. Trump isn't talking that way himself. He only suggests a MILD alternative and these fanatics go nuts.
Did you see where Bush is positing himself as a tough guy standing up to Trump? Bush calls Trump a bully. One commenter noted that only sissified men called another man a bully. Most of the commenters were laughing at Bush. No, Bush ain't no tough guy.
When I read this piece, I really felt bad for this country.
What may be getting overlooked with respect to reusable rocketry
A few points to keep in mind about SpaceX's recent achievement in landing the Falcon 9 first stage rocket and recovering it intact. A comparison with the Space Shuttle's main engine may not be apt for a number of reasons
I'd rate their chances at better than 50-50 at this point. You don't really know how much better than 50-50, but it is definitely better than 50-50.
- A different fuel that burns hotter in the Shuttle main engines.
- The Shuttle's engines burned all the way up, whereas this is only a first stage. The return to launch site burn only took a few of the engines. The burn was a lot shorter.
- Besides the Shuttle, there were rocket planes flown in the fifties, and these were reusable. How well did these hold up? The point is that these engines may be more durable than commonly believed at the moment because of the Shuttle experience.
- The Shuttle engines had to be rebuilt because there was no engine out capability. A loss of a Shuttle engine meant an abort. The Falcon 9 has an engine out capability. No need to abort a mission because of a failed engine. They can afford to push the envelope a little more.
- The SpaceX people may already have a pretty good idea of how long an engine could last from test firings on the stand. It stands to reason that they wouldn't spend a lot of money recovering a first stage rocket that wouldn't be useful at all. In other words, they have to believe that they have a good chance to fly again, and that it isn't based upon wishful thinking.
Monday, December 28, 2015
The Truth About Slavery: Past, Present and Future
Absolutely astounding factual information about slavery. Slavery was called America's Original Sin. Well, whether or not you agree with that or not, one thing you may not know, ( which I didn't) is that there were nearly as many white slaves as black slaves imported into America. Yep, betcha you didn't know that one.
In other words, slavery wasn't confined to race in the beginning. It ended up that way, sure, but it didn't start that way.
Slaves were treated much more kindly in America than was the case in Muslim territories. Black slaves were treated more kindly than the white slaves in America! Why? African slaves required black African warlords to capture black slaves because the average white man doesn't live long in Africa back then- the consequence was higher costs. Yep, you probably didn't know that one either. ( Or maybe I assume that you don't know it cuz I didn't know it. Most likely, the average person doesn't know, because if you did, you would be impervious to the guilt trip being laid on you for being a white person. )
So much of modern day liberalism depends upon laying the guilt trip on white people for being "racist". The historical truth is a bit different. Of course, you are not educated that way, because if you were, there goes their power.
In other words, slavery wasn't confined to race in the beginning. It ended up that way, sure, but it didn't start that way.
Slaves were treated much more kindly in America than was the case in Muslim territories. Black slaves were treated more kindly than the white slaves in America! Why? African slaves required black African warlords to capture black slaves because the average white man doesn't live long in Africa back then- the consequence was higher costs. Yep, you probably didn't know that one either. ( Or maybe I assume that you don't know it cuz I didn't know it. Most likely, the average person doesn't know, because if you did, you would be impervious to the guilt trip being laid on you for being a white person. )
So much of modern day liberalism depends upon laying the guilt trip on white people for being "racist". The historical truth is a bit different. Of course, you are not educated that way, because if you were, there goes their power.
First Amendment? Bah! Press censors the news like we were in an Iron Curtain Country
According to this article, the media censored three stories about AGW that would have cast doubt upon the theory.
Aside from not teaching us our own history, they are keeping the truth from the news itself.
You are mushrooms, my little snowflakes.
Aside from not teaching us our own history, they are keeping the truth from the news itself.
You are mushrooms, my little snowflakes.
Trump speaking truth to power and winning
American Thinker
Yep, it's exciting, but the outcome hasn't been decided yet. The outcome will tell us where we really are as a nation.
Trump is calling them on it and they don’t like it. More to the point, they don’t understand it. Donald Trump is challenging the liberal world. He is pointing out its failures. Trump is in the position of Harry Truman: he isn’t giving the liberals hell, he is telling the truth and they think it’s hell.
Yep, it's exciting, but the outcome hasn't been decided yet. The outcome will tell us where we really are as a nation.
The West is the best
But not according to the left. Mostly a good article ( Joel Kotkin ) , but it ends badly, as we see here:
Nice try. It isn't "xenophobic" nor "racist" to secure your own borders. It is almost ridiculous that you have to defend this with the vigor that must be brought to bear.
He does have a lot of points there. One may wonder how the whole thing could have happened. It think it happened after many years of leftist ( cultural Marxism) control of our culture. You have to take the control away from them, and begin the repairs that must be made. Don't know if Trump will do this, but his proposals are a step in the right direction.
Update:
This is a rather significant bit of information that most people have not heard about. The reason is that our universities don't teach it anymore, as the article points out. THIS POINT HAS A CRYING NEED TO BE BROADCAST OVER AND OVER AGAIN SO THAT IT WILL BE HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD. Our government has been failing us in the most horrific way imaginable. The author said that they abandoned our history. They did worse than that. They have abandoned us in every way. The cure for this is new leaders. There is not likely to be any other way to correct this.
Some people in Western countries are reacting to this abandonment of culture and heritage. Unfortunately, many of them are attracted to demagogues like Donald Trump or Marine Le PenYou might even call this a rather slick lie. Here this guy pretty much confirming everything that Trump has said, and then turns around, and sticks a knife in his back.
Nice try. It isn't "xenophobic" nor "racist" to secure your own borders. It is almost ridiculous that you have to defend this with the vigor that must be brought to bear.
He does have a lot of points there. One may wonder how the whole thing could have happened. It think it happened after many years of leftist ( cultural Marxism) control of our culture. You have to take the control away from them, and begin the repairs that must be made. Don't know if Trump will do this, but his proposals are a step in the right direction.
Update:
This is a rather significant bit of information that most people have not heard about. The reason is that our universities don't teach it anymore, as the article points out. THIS POINT HAS A CRYING NEED TO BE BROADCAST OVER AND OVER AGAIN SO THAT IT WILL BE HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD. Our government has been failing us in the most horrific way imaginable. The author said that they abandoned our history. They did worse than that. They have abandoned us in every way. The cure for this is new leaders. There is not likely to be any other way to correct this.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Professor of Ignorance
There's this black Professor who wrote a letter to "white America", in which he accuses the whites of being racist.
This stuff is so old. It is also ignorant. If you would just watch the video that I embedded awhile back. In it, it is discussed how WHITE people were taken as SLAVES for CENTURIES by the Mohammedans. White people died by the millions during such enslavement.
Yet, you don't see white people blaming slavery of that time for all their problems. What happened in the past is in the past. It has little to do with today, yet the blacks allow themselves to persuaded that it does.
You won't get anywhere in life if you excuse your own failures by blaming someone else. The professor doesn't enlighten anybody, he keeps them in the dark. ( no pun intended )
This stuff is so old. It is also ignorant. If you would just watch the video that I embedded awhile back. In it, it is discussed how WHITE people were taken as SLAVES for CENTURIES by the Mohammedans. White people died by the millions during such enslavement.
Yet, you don't see white people blaming slavery of that time for all their problems. What happened in the past is in the past. It has little to do with today, yet the blacks allow themselves to persuaded that it does.
You won't get anywhere in life if you excuse your own failures by blaming someone else. The professor doesn't enlighten anybody, he keeps them in the dark. ( no pun intended )
Computer blues
Today's the day for the blues. Weather is right, as it is raining. The computer is old and worn out. I've tried to restore it to its best possible function. But it is kind of like being a doctor and telling the patient-- "I've done all I can."
The internals are a mess. The externals are a mess. It looks like a mess and it is. It is literally being held together with duct tape.
I use the hell out of my computers. This one is nearly seven years old, and it might as well be seventy. The keys are worn on it. I banged out a lot of blog posts on this little machine. Nearly 10,000 now, and most of them on this little gizmo. It has worked hard for me and I will miss it when it is gone. That's why I'm working hard to keep 'er alive.
One thing is true, the world will kick your butt.
The internals are a mess. The externals are a mess. It looks like a mess and it is. It is literally being held together with duct tape.
I use the hell out of my computers. This one is nearly seven years old, and it might as well be seventy. The keys are worn on it. I banged out a lot of blog posts on this little machine. Nearly 10,000 now, and most of them on this little gizmo. It has worked hard for me and I will miss it when it is gone. That's why I'm working hard to keep 'er alive.
One thing is true, the world will kick your butt.
Moonshot blues
With respect to the off-the-grid project ( my personal "moonshot" ), it seems like I am not getting anywhere sometimes. A tough decision is coming up and it is hard to choose amongst the alternatives. There are a number of them that are possible. Making the list produces the following:
- convert the van
- obtain a larger, newer "moving van" vehicle with a higher profile
- use the trailer
- use the trailer and convert the van
- do what Wishbone is doing
It will be necessary to identify what the problems are.
One of them is cost. The budget is really tight. That would seem to rule out the moving van.
Another is comfort. Trying to imagine myself living like this doesn't seem appealing if it is full time.
Durability. Can it last a long time? It will have to because once it wears out, it may be impossible to replace.
Security. A theft would be disastrous. It would be very hard to replace this stuff.
Health. Is it possible to keep healthy living like that? Seems like a hard way to live.
Some of these issues may be considered "hard", others "soft". Health and comfort may be soft. Durability maybe deferred to future years. Security and cost are immediate, and therefore "hard".
Seems like I didn't consider quality of life issues. I relegated that to the back burner, or I didn't want to think about them.
Lately, it seems that an early move out West is to be ruled out. No move in until begin receiving my SS checks.
I've just about transitioned out of delivery. Even if I went back, it would have to stop no later than June.
That's a minimum of one year that I will subsist off Uber. At the moment, this looks dicey.
I've re-read some of my prior postings on this. It has a repetitive quality about it. That's why it is the blues. It reflects a lot of indecision.
Update:
Key is uber. Have to make uber work better than what it is at the moment. If it doesn't work better, then most of this is academic. more
This post will be organized into the general subseries of the main series of off-the-grid type posts.
Prev Next
One of them is cost. The budget is really tight. That would seem to rule out the moving van.
Another is comfort. Trying to imagine myself living like this doesn't seem appealing if it is full time.
Durability. Can it last a long time? It will have to because once it wears out, it may be impossible to replace.
Security. A theft would be disastrous. It would be very hard to replace this stuff.
Health. Is it possible to keep healthy living like that? Seems like a hard way to live.
Some of these issues may be considered "hard", others "soft". Health and comfort may be soft. Durability maybe deferred to future years. Security and cost are immediate, and therefore "hard".
Seems like I didn't consider quality of life issues. I relegated that to the back burner, or I didn't want to think about them.
Lately, it seems that an early move out West is to be ruled out. No move in until begin receiving my SS checks.
I've just about transitioned out of delivery. Even if I went back, it would have to stop no later than June.
That's a minimum of one year that I will subsist off Uber. At the moment, this looks dicey.
I've re-read some of my prior postings on this. It has a repetitive quality about it. That's why it is the blues. It reflects a lot of indecision.
Update:
Key is uber. Have to make uber work better than what it is at the moment. If it doesn't work better, then most of this is academic. more
This post will be organized into the general subseries of the main series of off-the-grid type posts.
Prev Next
Saturday, December 26, 2015
What would be the best system to handle water needs?
There are a number of things I'd like to try, but shortage of money is going to limit them. Maybe that is not such a bad thing. I wrote that before, by the way. A shortage of money causes one to be more creative in solving problems.
One thing I'd like to try out west is to capture water through condensation of the humidity that's already in the atmosphere. You'd think that it was too dry out there, but it actually can get fairly humid at times. It is during these times that I think an opportunity exists to capture some of that water.
An idea that I have is to convert my freezer into such a device. What it would do is send a column of air, which would be in a metal tube that enters and exits the freezer. By the time the air got through the entire circuit I put it through, the water would freeze out of the atmosphere and be deposited on the inside of the tube. Once the tube plugged up, it would be ready for harvest. I'd pull it out, and put another in its place. While the next batch froze up, I'd melt the one just collected and obtain the water.
In order to make this idea work, I'd have to make the freezer work out there. This requires a lot of equipment that isn't cheap. Let's see:
One thing I'd like to try out west is to capture water through condensation of the humidity that's already in the atmosphere. You'd think that it was too dry out there, but it actually can get fairly humid at times. It is during these times that I think an opportunity exists to capture some of that water.
An idea that I have is to convert my freezer into such a device. What it would do is send a column of air, which would be in a metal tube that enters and exits the freezer. By the time the air got through the entire circuit I put it through, the water would freeze out of the atmosphere and be deposited on the inside of the tube. Once the tube plugged up, it would be ready for harvest. I'd pull it out, and put another in its place. While the next batch froze up, I'd melt the one just collected and obtain the water.
In order to make this idea work, I'd have to make the freezer work out there. This requires a lot of equipment that isn't cheap. Let's see:
- It would need a special inverter that could convert 12 volt direct current into 115 volt alternating current. This might cost up to a thousand bucks.
- It would need batteries to store electrical power from solar panels and windpower. Let's say 2k$
- It would need said solar panels and the windpower module. Let's say 3k$
- Possibly you could run an electrical generator that runs on propane or gasoline. About 1k$
- But the said electrical generator couldn't run the thing directly, so you would still need batteries.
Looks like the cheap alternative would be to use a propane generator that recharged the batteries. About 4k$ in total. That's a lot of bucks for somebody who cannot afford to spend that kind of money on a mere experiment.
What would be accomplished? Well, if you could pull out 4 gallons of water a night, that would take care of all personal needs for one person. If you could pull out more, then that might be something special depending on how much you could get.
A commercial dehumidifier could do the job under normal circumstances, but this requires something a bit more powerful. There's some advertised that claim up to 70 pints per day. If you could get that kind of performance, which I don't know is even possible, it might be possible to run it about 8 hours per day, or about 1/3 the time. That would be about 70/3 pints per day. That's about 3 gallons of water.
The said dehumidifier would use 750 watts/hrs for that 8 hours, or for the maximum of 6 kilowatt hours of electricity. That's a lot to generate out there. That might even leave out the solar and wind possibility even though it is the most expensive.
You could easily reach the amount needed provided that the batteries could take the charge that fast. If not, you will need more batteries. Figure about another 2k$ for the batteries. Up to 6k$.
Well, it's an interesting idea, but it looks to be way too expensive just to try to save effort on the water issue.
Rainwater catchment just requires that you make the buildings capable of draining the water into a tank. The cost is whatever it costs to make the tank. The downside is that you have to wait for it to rain.
Perhaps the cheapest way is the most straightforward way: going to town and buy the water. It costs for the gas to drive the vehicle, and the containers to carry the water. One dude out there scoffed at my idea to capture rainwater. Maybe he is on to something. Experience is the best teacher.
Since I need to go into town anyway, I can always just bring along a container and fill it with water when I'm in town. Recycling could be helpful in stretching the supply. Rainwater catchment can supplement it, but cannot be the primary means. Building that other stuff is too expensive.
Rainwater catchment just requires that you make the buildings capable of draining the water into a tank. The cost is whatever it costs to make the tank. The downside is that you have to wait for it to rain.
Perhaps the cheapest way is the most straightforward way: going to town and buy the water. It costs for the gas to drive the vehicle, and the containers to carry the water. One dude out there scoffed at my idea to capture rainwater. Maybe he is on to something. Experience is the best teacher.
Since I need to go into town anyway, I can always just bring along a container and fill it with water when I'm in town. Recycling could be helpful in stretching the supply. Rainwater catchment can supplement it, but cannot be the primary means. Building that other stuff is too expensive.
I may have done this analysis before. Anyway, I may include it in my off-the-grid series in the subseries devoted to water.
This is about as explicit as it gets
The anti-white attitude of the left on display.
quote of a quote:
Little wonder then that the USS Cole was attacked on Columbus Day in the year 2000.
It is as if they were internalizing the Autobiography of Malcom X, in which their religion demonizes the white man as literally the devil.
Little wonder then, that they embrace AGW, even though it bears no resemblance to science nor the truth.
No wonder then, that we were attacked on 9.11.2001. No wonder we elected a guy with a Muslim name to the highest office in the land. There's a word for it, it is called oikophobia. With all this self-hatred on display, why wouldn't the Mohommedans think we were ripe for conquest?
quote of a quote:
The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt.
Little wonder then that the USS Cole was attacked on Columbus Day in the year 2000.
It is as if they were internalizing the Autobiography of Malcom X, in which their religion demonizes the white man as literally the devil.
Little wonder then, that they embrace AGW, even though it bears no resemblance to science nor the truth.
No wonder then, that we were attacked on 9.11.2001. No wonder we elected a guy with a Muslim name to the highest office in the land. There's a word for it, it is called oikophobia. With all this self-hatred on display, why wouldn't the Mohommedans think we were ripe for conquest?
Rolling coffin
It's been awhile since I've written about my move out to west Texas. With my increasing infirmities, I'm beginning to think that it may not be a good move after all. As of this time, however, the move is still on.
One thing about the trailer, which I have already purchased, is that I wanted it to be tall enough inside so that I can stand in it. However, that may create some problems in my plans. The idea now may be to make it shorter so that I won't be able to stand up in it. That said, it is somewhat reluctant of me to want to do this, because I don't like stooping inside the van.
But what purpose is the trailer, but to sleep in? So, you don't need to stand up in order to sleep, but for to take a shower. This isn't necessary either, as a shower can be set up so that you can do it sitting down.
The buildings on the property will be tall enough to stand up in. When I'm on the go, it won't be possible to stand up. Given the fact that I want to use the car for Uber, then I will need something to live in while in town. This means the trailer. This also means that the car will have to be stored in town while I drive back and forth between the property and town. I can save money living in the trailer, but have to spend a little to have a storage space for the car.
It may be possible to do all that without busting the budget.
A shorter trailer then, is a possibility. Also, a possibility to save money by making it myself. Not to mention, I don't like the idea of towing a large trailer over those dirt roads out there.
When I discussed this trailer with my eldest brother ( number one ), he said this type of trailer is "rickety". So, this was a bit discouraging for awhile until I came up with the idea to use cotter pins to hold the thing together. Why not? The only thing holding your front wheels on your car is a cotter pin. That may bother some folks, but a tiny little piece of metal is the only thing that separates you from disaster. If that cotter pin fails, the wheel falls off. This is true, so it would also be true for holding that trailer together so that it will be more robust than what number one says.
If it has a lower profile, it will be easier to see around. That important for driving around a lot.
For the actual building, the thought occurred to me to use a thin metal skin. Actually, that isn't a new thought, as the idea of using metal has already occurred to me. On this iteration of the idea, which may not be too different from the last, is to use the metal as a skin over the plywood and wood frame.
Another plus for the shorter profile is that it will be easier to climate control. It gets closer to being the "coffin" that I described earlier. The less cubic feet, the less energy it takes to keep it comfortable inside. Call it the "rolling coffin".
Update:
Once again, I get the idea to use some of my stuff in the apartment for my RV van conversion. The bedroom chest can fit snugly into the van. I was thinking of cutting out a hole and placing a sink in it. One 5 gallon bucket for fresh water, and one for grey water that collect the water going down the drink. A mirror can be placed above it. Plenty of room for one. Not really a bad idea, especially if I am going to make the sleeping quarters in the trailer.
Update:
This entire concept may have to be shelved. Too much expense. Too much trouble. It may be better to try something else.
This post will go in the construction subseries of the off-the-grid main series of posts.
Prev Next
One thing about the trailer, which I have already purchased, is that I wanted it to be tall enough inside so that I can stand in it. However, that may create some problems in my plans. The idea now may be to make it shorter so that I won't be able to stand up in it. That said, it is somewhat reluctant of me to want to do this, because I don't like stooping inside the van.
But what purpose is the trailer, but to sleep in? So, you don't need to stand up in order to sleep, but for to take a shower. This isn't necessary either, as a shower can be set up so that you can do it sitting down.
The buildings on the property will be tall enough to stand up in. When I'm on the go, it won't be possible to stand up. Given the fact that I want to use the car for Uber, then I will need something to live in while in town. This means the trailer. This also means that the car will have to be stored in town while I drive back and forth between the property and town. I can save money living in the trailer, but have to spend a little to have a storage space for the car.
It may be possible to do all that without busting the budget.
A shorter trailer then, is a possibility. Also, a possibility to save money by making it myself. Not to mention, I don't like the idea of towing a large trailer over those dirt roads out there.
When I discussed this trailer with my eldest brother ( number one ), he said this type of trailer is "rickety". So, this was a bit discouraging for awhile until I came up with the idea to use cotter pins to hold the thing together. Why not? The only thing holding your front wheels on your car is a cotter pin. That may bother some folks, but a tiny little piece of metal is the only thing that separates you from disaster. If that cotter pin fails, the wheel falls off. This is true, so it would also be true for holding that trailer together so that it will be more robust than what number one says.
If it has a lower profile, it will be easier to see around. That important for driving around a lot.
For the actual building, the thought occurred to me to use a thin metal skin. Actually, that isn't a new thought, as the idea of using metal has already occurred to me. On this iteration of the idea, which may not be too different from the last, is to use the metal as a skin over the plywood and wood frame.
Another plus for the shorter profile is that it will be easier to climate control. It gets closer to being the "coffin" that I described earlier. The less cubic feet, the less energy it takes to keep it comfortable inside. Call it the "rolling coffin".
Update:
Once again, I get the idea to use some of my stuff in the apartment for my RV van conversion. The bedroom chest can fit snugly into the van. I was thinking of cutting out a hole and placing a sink in it. One 5 gallon bucket for fresh water, and one for grey water that collect the water going down the drink. A mirror can be placed above it. Plenty of room for one. Not really a bad idea, especially if I am going to make the sleeping quarters in the trailer.
Update:
This entire concept may have to be shelved. Too much expense. Too much trouble. It may be better to try something else.
This post will go in the construction subseries of the off-the-grid main series of posts.
Prev Next
Friday, December 25, 2015
From Gloom to Gusto
The fact that Chris Christie was able to win the Hispanic vote should be a reason to be optimistic about the GOP's chances to win the White House.
Not that all of the GOP will follow Christie's methods. A lot of the doom comes from the demographics, which don't seem to favor the GOP. However, if a GOP candidate can actually win a demographic like this, it shoots the Democrat's strategy all to hell.
A reason for optimism, indeed.
I've studied Christie a little. He's conservative enough unless you are just downright unreasonable about your conservatism.
Not that I've gone over to Christie, mind you. Only that Christie proves that it is possible.
Not that all of the GOP will follow Christie's methods. A lot of the doom comes from the demographics, which don't seem to favor the GOP. However, if a GOP candidate can actually win a demographic like this, it shoots the Democrat's strategy all to hell.
A reason for optimism, indeed.
I've studied Christie a little. He's conservative enough unless you are just downright unreasonable about your conservatism.
Not that I've gone over to Christie, mind you. Only that Christie proves that it is possible.
Christie: Clinton Should Suspend Campaign After ISIS Comments
Instapundit
comment:
Christie is criticizing Hillary's statement that seems to ignore the realities of the situation.
As for the Christie campaign, he is probably not going to win, unless he can win over the Establishment types. In order to do that, he must support amnesty. It's all about getting cheap immigrant labor and for the Democrats, getting their votes.
But Christie claims he won 22 percent of the black vote and more than that:
Truly, this is something to consider. I know, I know. He helped Obama win in 2012. I criticized him a lot for that. Nevertheless, Christie is worth a closer look, according to what he says here and plugging in those numbers at the 538 site bears it out.
Update:
Conservatives seem to have a problem with Christie. There are a few things that worry me about him, but overall, he'd be a whole lot better than Hillary. If the choice was between him and Hillary, I'd definitely vote for him.
If I had a scorecard right now, I'd say he doesn't rank high with me, but he scores better than Bush and maybe even Rubio. Kasich doesn't score well at all. I don't take Paul seriously. At this point, it's bifurcated with: Trump, Cruz, Carson, Christie, and Rubio with the adults. Kasich, Bush, Paul and the others can go to the kiddies' table.
Overall, I'm not confident for the GOP nominee to win in the general. If winning was the only thing, Christie and Rubio would be at the top. Rubio is not trustworthy, or he'd be higher.
Trump has to grow as a candidate, and time is running short.
comment:
Christie is criticizing Hillary's statement that seems to ignore the realities of the situation.
As for the Christie campaign, he is probably not going to win, unless he can win over the Establishment types. In order to do that, he must support amnesty. It's all about getting cheap immigrant labor and for the Democrats, getting their votes.
But Christie claims he won 22 percent of the black vote and more than that:
“I won the Hispanic vote – won it – 51 percent of the Hispanic vote in New Jersey; 22 percent of the African-American vote, up from 9 percent four years earlier, and 57 percent of the female vote against an 18-year female state senator. In the end, if you walk away from today with nothing else just remember this: I know how to win
Truly, this is something to consider. I know, I know. He helped Obama win in 2012. I criticized him a lot for that. Nevertheless, Christie is worth a closer look, according to what he says here and plugging in those numbers at the 538 site bears it out.
Update:
Conservatives seem to have a problem with Christie. There are a few things that worry me about him, but overall, he'd be a whole lot better than Hillary. If the choice was between him and Hillary, I'd definitely vote for him.
If I had a scorecard right now, I'd say he doesn't rank high with me, but he scores better than Bush and maybe even Rubio. Kasich doesn't score well at all. I don't take Paul seriously. At this point, it's bifurcated with: Trump, Cruz, Carson, Christie, and Rubio with the adults. Kasich, Bush, Paul and the others can go to the kiddies' table.
Overall, I'm not confident for the GOP nominee to win in the general. If winning was the only thing, Christie and Rubio would be at the top. Rubio is not trustworthy, or he'd be higher.
Trump has to grow as a candidate, and time is running short.
Merry Christmas
Not exactly a tradition on this blog. As a matter of fact, there was just one year in which I didn't do a "Merry Christmas" post, and it was in 2011. All other years, there was one post devoted to Christmas.
Christmas was a big deal to my Dad. Not in the religious sense, but in the gift giving sense. He thought it was important to celebrate it that way. Something about that bothered me, though. Maybe there has always been this questioning side to me. If I had asked why we do this, I might not get an adequate answer. "Just because" isn't good enough for yours truly. You didn't "sass" my Dad, either. If he said something, you'd better do it.
You'd think the old man was strict, but not at all. It was an amazing amount of freedom that we had as kids. It is curious why I am not more adventurous, because I'm not. Maybe it is a matter of temperament.
But contemplating that move out West is a bit bold. Maybe bold isn't the word. Maybe reckless. Sometimes, I can get rash.
I know how Charlie Brown felt when he asked what is Christmas all about.
Christmas was a big deal to my Dad. Not in the religious sense, but in the gift giving sense. He thought it was important to celebrate it that way. Something about that bothered me, though. Maybe there has always been this questioning side to me. If I had asked why we do this, I might not get an adequate answer. "Just because" isn't good enough for yours truly. You didn't "sass" my Dad, either. If he said something, you'd better do it.
You'd think the old man was strict, but not at all. It was an amazing amount of freedom that we had as kids. It is curious why I am not more adventurous, because I'm not. Maybe it is a matter of temperament.
But contemplating that move out West is a bit bold. Maybe bold isn't the word. Maybe reckless. Sometimes, I can get rash.
I know how Charlie Brown felt when he asked what is Christmas all about.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
More AGW debunking
Not my ideas this time, but someone else's. Saw part of it at Ace, then the rest here.
The part you see at Ace discusses how carbon dioxide can possibly absorb heat. But for it do so, it must deviate from and Ideal Gas. This was the discussion I took on in an earlier post. What it amounts to is that if the heat doesn't expand the gas, then the gas won't expand like an Ideal Gas.
Frankly, I'm doubtful that carbon dioxide can absorb any heat at all, despite this. As soon as it gets hotter, it expands, which in turn, causes it to cool down. All gases do this. The expansion will offset any gains that might have been possible with its atomic structure.
The part you see at Ace discusses how carbon dioxide can possibly absorb heat. But for it do so, it must deviate from and Ideal Gas. This was the discussion I took on in an earlier post. What it amounts to is that if the heat doesn't expand the gas, then the gas won't expand like an Ideal Gas.
Frankly, I'm doubtful that carbon dioxide can absorb any heat at all, despite this. As soon as it gets hotter, it expands, which in turn, causes it to cool down. All gases do this. The expansion will offset any gains that might have been possible with its atomic structure.
When talking no longer works
One of the assumptions amongst the left leaning types is that we can all talk out our problems. Or so it seems sometimes.
You get a Muslim who wants to kill you, like the one who killed Theo Van Gogh. I recall the story is that Van Gogh pleaded with his killer for an opportunity to "talk it over". Of course, there was no way that was going to happen. Words had lost their ability to affect outcomes, assuming that such was ever the case anyway. If it is the case, it is only amongst those who play by the same rules. Van Gogh's killer did not play by those rules.
Then you get people in this country who believe that you can talk with the other political party and "work with them". So, how's that been going? If you want to know the truth, this is what I believed myself. If you present your information to them, you could persuade them. But what happens is different. You find that no matter what you say, it won't make any difference. Once again, the assumption is that people are going to play by a certain set of rules, when in fact, they've got their own rules, and your rules aren't part of theirs.
Any more examples?
Maybe the communists v. the capitalists during the Cold War. The left in this country wanted to work things out with the Soviet Union. They wanted to bargain and to make deals. But along comes Reagan, and he just defeats them, and then its over. Come to think of it, the left really hated Reagan for that.
There doesn't necessarily have to be a war, or violence; but there does have to be an approach that can work. The winners seem to work for victory. Those who wait around for dialogue won't win, but may just get themselves extinct.
The problem thus stated is that there comes a time when words fail, and some type of action is required. When it comes to internal affairs, such as government and politics, that action could take the form of violence, or it take take the form of a movement that may or may not employ violence. You could have a revolution, or you could have an election that is a watershed type election. If the elections don't work, then the violence may come later. One way or another, when words fail, something is going to have to give.
What the left is attempting to do in this country is to change the nature of its society without discussion or violence. There's currently no discussion, because in order to have discussion, there has to be some give and take. When there's none of that, then violence of some kind is likely.
It remains to be seen whether or not people in this country recognize this in time in order to avoid violence.
You get a Muslim who wants to kill you, like the one who killed Theo Van Gogh. I recall the story is that Van Gogh pleaded with his killer for an opportunity to "talk it over". Of course, there was no way that was going to happen. Words had lost their ability to affect outcomes, assuming that such was ever the case anyway. If it is the case, it is only amongst those who play by the same rules. Van Gogh's killer did not play by those rules.
Then you get people in this country who believe that you can talk with the other political party and "work with them". So, how's that been going? If you want to know the truth, this is what I believed myself. If you present your information to them, you could persuade them. But what happens is different. You find that no matter what you say, it won't make any difference. Once again, the assumption is that people are going to play by a certain set of rules, when in fact, they've got their own rules, and your rules aren't part of theirs.
Any more examples?
Maybe the communists v. the capitalists during the Cold War. The left in this country wanted to work things out with the Soviet Union. They wanted to bargain and to make deals. But along comes Reagan, and he just defeats them, and then its over. Come to think of it, the left really hated Reagan for that.
There doesn't necessarily have to be a war, or violence; but there does have to be an approach that can work. The winners seem to work for victory. Those who wait around for dialogue won't win, but may just get themselves extinct.
The problem thus stated is that there comes a time when words fail, and some type of action is required. When it comes to internal affairs, such as government and politics, that action could take the form of violence, or it take take the form of a movement that may or may not employ violence. You could have a revolution, or you could have an election that is a watershed type election. If the elections don't work, then the violence may come later. One way or another, when words fail, something is going to have to give.
What the left is attempting to do in this country is to change the nature of its society without discussion or violence. There's currently no discussion, because in order to have discussion, there has to be some give and take. When there's none of that, then violence of some kind is likely.
It remains to be seen whether or not people in this country recognize this in time in order to avoid violence.
Forgotten history
The true story is nothing like what you are constantly being told. You are made to feel guilty as a means of controlling you and then subjugating you.
Learn the truth if you like to be civilized.
h/t Free Republic
Learn the truth if you like to be civilized.
h/t Free Republic
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
France is racist
Of course I don't mean that, but that's the logic of the attack against Trump for wanting to control our borders.
More control over the borders is very popular there now according to this story:
So, by the "standards" of some talking head types in this country, France has become a racist country.
Update:
Oh, this story isn't terrorism. To say so shows that you are a bigot. It's the French's fault for being fearful. It's all Islamophobia. They brought it upon themselves. /sarcasm off
More control over the borders is very popular there now according to this story:
A similarly overwhelming majority want more police officers and stricter border controls. [emphasis added]
So, by the "standards" of some talking head types in this country, France has become a racist country.
Update:
Oh, this story isn't terrorism. To say so shows that you are a bigot. It's the French's fault for being fearful. It's all Islamophobia. They brought it upon themselves. /sarcasm off
Ann Barnhardt might be right
Not that I agree with her "axiom" about any political candidate who runs for office is already unfit for that office. Nope. What convinces me that the nation is done is by reading what the rank and file have to say. And by checking closely at their voting habits.
It's going to be mighty hard to change those habits and attitudes, let me tell you. If 9.11 couldn't do it, then it probably can't be done.
In other words, the nation could still be turned around, but we require some sort of national sea change in attitudes. That's not happening. If anything, the thing just seems to be worse than ever.
I'm still going to favor Trump. But I'm not going to kid myself about it. Rubio may poll better, but his word is useless. They call Trump a liar, but Rubio is far worse when it comes to immigration. I checked it out.
They are all overplaying the "vulgarity" thing. It's just an excuse. If Bill Clinton can hold the White House for eight years, then claiming their prudishness was hurt doesn't fly with me.
It's going to be mighty hard to change those habits and attitudes, let me tell you. If 9.11 couldn't do it, then it probably can't be done.
In other words, the nation could still be turned around, but we require some sort of national sea change in attitudes. That's not happening. If anything, the thing just seems to be worse than ever.
I'm still going to favor Trump. But I'm not going to kid myself about it. Rubio may poll better, but his word is useless. They call Trump a liar, but Rubio is far worse when it comes to immigration. I checked it out.
They are all overplaying the "vulgarity" thing. It's just an excuse. If Bill Clinton can hold the White House for eight years, then claiming their prudishness was hurt doesn't fly with me.
There's a difference between lying and being wrong
I've had a saying on this blog- the truth is a slippery thing. But lying isn't so slippery. Lying is rock solid and full of friction so that it can be fully grasped- not like the fish that slip away.
What makes it so? It is a willful attempt to deceive someone about what is the truth of a subject.
For example, a crook steals something, and is suspected of being the culprit. Do you think the crook, when asked, will admit to the theft? Isn't it more likely that he will deceive others in such a way as to be able to get away with his theft? The crook knows who's guilty- he is. He was there when it happened. He knows all the details about the theft. But he will not tell anybody that because he will be punished for it, and he knows it. The crook has a motive for his lying. He gains from it.
Now, suppose there was a witness who saw the crook. The witness points out an innocent person who looks like the crook, but isn't the same person. The witness swears up and down that the innocent person is guilty. Is the witness a liar then? Not if he actually believes what he is saying. He is merely wrong.
The truth is slippery here because you've got two people who look the same, but only one of them could have done the crime.
But the liar isn't slippery. He knows the truth, and he is determined that those who seek him out won't find him.
In this hypothetical case, the truth may become known with more investigation. But someone has to be motivated to find that truth. If nobody cares about it, the truth will remain unknown.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that there was a poll which asked some questions about the two leading candidates for president. Hillary is thought to be dishonest and untrustworthy. But so is Trump.
I am thinking that there is one of these two who is more trustworthy than the other. But that is not what the poll asked. Actually, more people in the poll think Trump is a liar than Hillary.
That surprises me. From what I've read about Trump so far, the worst that can be said of him is that he exaggerates. Not the same as lying. Hillary, on the other hand, just makes stuff up. She will say anything.
So, I'm wondering if Trump loses the election to a ruthless liar simply because of some of things he says aren't 100% true in all its details. For example, he is said to be a liar because he said he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9.11 atrocity. Perhaps he really didn't see that. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he definitely did see something. Hillary, on the other hand, makes up a story about a video that caused the Benghazi attack, which was proven to be false. She was proven to be a liar when one of her emails revealed that she knew it wasn't about a video. She goes to the video stories again by accusing Trump of causing ISIS to recruit based upon what Trump is saying. But no videos exist. She made it up out of whole cloth. She had to be lying.
But if you check the polls, the people think the two are about equally dishonest. The truth is a slippery thing. You have to really be determined to get at the truth in order to keep digging for it. For that, there needs to be a respect for truth. If you seek it, you will find it- if finding the truth is your motivation.
What makes it so? It is a willful attempt to deceive someone about what is the truth of a subject.
For example, a crook steals something, and is suspected of being the culprit. Do you think the crook, when asked, will admit to the theft? Isn't it more likely that he will deceive others in such a way as to be able to get away with his theft? The crook knows who's guilty- he is. He was there when it happened. He knows all the details about the theft. But he will not tell anybody that because he will be punished for it, and he knows it. The crook has a motive for his lying. He gains from it.
Now, suppose there was a witness who saw the crook. The witness points out an innocent person who looks like the crook, but isn't the same person. The witness swears up and down that the innocent person is guilty. Is the witness a liar then? Not if he actually believes what he is saying. He is merely wrong.
The truth is slippery here because you've got two people who look the same, but only one of them could have done the crime.
But the liar isn't slippery. He knows the truth, and he is determined that those who seek him out won't find him.
In this hypothetical case, the truth may become known with more investigation. But someone has to be motivated to find that truth. If nobody cares about it, the truth will remain unknown.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that there was a poll which asked some questions about the two leading candidates for president. Hillary is thought to be dishonest and untrustworthy. But so is Trump.
I am thinking that there is one of these two who is more trustworthy than the other. But that is not what the poll asked. Actually, more people in the poll think Trump is a liar than Hillary.
That surprises me. From what I've read about Trump so far, the worst that can be said of him is that he exaggerates. Not the same as lying. Hillary, on the other hand, just makes stuff up. She will say anything.
So, I'm wondering if Trump loses the election to a ruthless liar simply because of some of things he says aren't 100% true in all its details. For example, he is said to be a liar because he said he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the 9.11 atrocity. Perhaps he really didn't see that. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he definitely did see something. Hillary, on the other hand, makes up a story about a video that caused the Benghazi attack, which was proven to be false. She was proven to be a liar when one of her emails revealed that she knew it wasn't about a video. She goes to the video stories again by accusing Trump of causing ISIS to recruit based upon what Trump is saying. But no videos exist. She made it up out of whole cloth. She had to be lying.
But if you check the polls, the people think the two are about equally dishonest. The truth is a slippery thing. You have to really be determined to get at the truth in order to keep digging for it. For that, there needs to be a respect for truth. If you seek it, you will find it- if finding the truth is your motivation.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
They did not know this, but could have guessed
Michael Barone notes that the GOP candidates didn't know that the markets would collapse in 2008, or they would have campaigned differently.
Since I seemed to have guessed it, so could they. The warning signs were there.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda ain't no excuse. It was possible to run on the possibility. Not that you would have been believed, though.
In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference. The nominating conventions were over by the time the markets collapsed.
Since I seemed to have guessed it, so could they. The warning signs were there.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda ain't no excuse. It was possible to run on the possibility. Not that you would have been believed, though.
In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference. The nominating conventions were over by the time the markets collapsed.
Are we no longer at war with radical Islam?
Hillary then, and Hillary now.
So, is the war on Terror over, or not?
If it isn't, then what is her beef against Trump?
h/t Instapundit
So, is the war on Terror over, or not?
If it isn't, then what is her beef against Trump?
h/t Instapundit
Climate data scandal
It revolves around the agency’s persistent refusal to provide to Congress documentation of its methodology for collecting and using data in climate models.
comment:
If it was truly a science, then why all the secrecy? Science is a quest for truth. How does secrecy serve that end?
comment:
If it was truly a science, then why all the secrecy? Science is a quest for truth. How does secrecy serve that end?
Trouble for Trump
Seems to be related to a recent post, in which the vote is broke down amongst the demographics.
This trouble may not harm him in the primaries, but could bite him hard in the general.
According to Dick Morris' lunch alert titled "who's voting for who", Trump's supporters are blue collar, non-college educated men. That means big trouble in the general. That's not enough to win the general. It will certainly help to have those, but who he needs is Rubio's voters to win. He doesn't appear to be on track to win those. The media will see to that.
There has always been a downside to Trump. The downside is that his appeal may be too narrow.
This trouble may not harm him in the primaries, but could bite him hard in the general.
According to Dick Morris' lunch alert titled "who's voting for who", Trump's supporters are blue collar, non-college educated men. That means big trouble in the general. That's not enough to win the general. It will certainly help to have those, but who he needs is Rubio's voters to win. He doesn't appear to be on track to win those. The media will see to that.
There has always been a downside to Trump. The downside is that his appeal may be too narrow.
SpaceX nails it
After a number of failed attempts, SpaceX has now achieved a soft landing of their first stage rocket.
As momentous as this is, it isn't entirely new in all respects. The Space Shuttle was mostly reusable. However, it didn't save money on its launches due to the fact that the reusability part didn't turn out to be easy. The main engines had to be mostly rebuilt after each launch. The solid rocket boosters had to be taken apart and rebuilt as well.
The designs are different enough though that the results may also be different. The first stage burns for less time and at a lower temperature. It uses nine engines instead of three, which gives a margin for error that the Shuttle didn't have. The solid rocket boosters aren't there. Instead, there's the rocket casing, which presumably won't need any refurbishing at all.
Actually, landing the thing may be the easy part. The hard part may be getting the reusability down pat, plus a fast turnaround. If all this can be accomplished, then it should be revolutionary.
Update:
According to this article, the first stage probably won't fly again. They'll be going over it with a fine tooth comb. It stands to reason that it may not make it back after they finish with it.
Also, I didn't take into account how much the engines had to fire on the return trip. It remains to be seen what that may mean to refurb efforts.
As momentous as this is, it isn't entirely new in all respects. The Space Shuttle was mostly reusable. However, it didn't save money on its launches due to the fact that the reusability part didn't turn out to be easy. The main engines had to be mostly rebuilt after each launch. The solid rocket boosters had to be taken apart and rebuilt as well.
The designs are different enough though that the results may also be different. The first stage burns for less time and at a lower temperature. It uses nine engines instead of three, which gives a margin for error that the Shuttle didn't have. The solid rocket boosters aren't there. Instead, there's the rocket casing, which presumably won't need any refurbishing at all.
Actually, landing the thing may be the easy part. The hard part may be getting the reusability down pat, plus a fast turnaround. If all this can be accomplished, then it should be revolutionary.
Update:
According to this article, the first stage probably won't fly again. They'll be going over it with a fine tooth comb. It stands to reason that it may not make it back after they finish with it.
Also, I didn't take into account how much the engines had to fire on the return trip. It remains to be seen what that may mean to refurb efforts.
Monday, December 21, 2015
What happens with Trump is a watershed moment in US History
It seems that Obama is charging the white people of the country with racism, because of the Trump phenomenon.
I was just thinking- that old magic is fading. The magic being that if you denounce a political figure as racist, then their career is over. Now that Obama has practically done that with Trump and his followers, the test of that magic can be seen as still all powerful, or fading fast.
The left's argument boils down to this: If you care about the racist, bigoted country of America, that's only because that's what you are racist yourself. Since Trump wants to "make America great again", then that makes you racist. He's trying to bring back bad old America, which was so unfair to the rest of the world with her prosperity and power.
Until America is punished enough, it is unfit. So Obama is there to punish the country. That's what his speech really means. Punish America ( white people). Until America has been punished and changed enough ( turned non-white) , America must suffer.
I see Trump as America's last chance to right its own ship before she sinks for good.
It's too bad that there are too many people in this country who don't see Obama for what he really is. That's why he was elected twice.
As for Hillary, she's just a crook. I'm sure that if Obama could, he'd replace her with someone more to his liking. Hillary will say anything. She might even pretend to be completely different from Obama, if she thought she had to be in order to win.
She can't suck up to Obama, though. She has to accuse Trump of being racist. That's their playbook. Anyone who tries to defend America, or see her prosper, will be considered an enemy. This is what animates the left.
If too many people are convinced of the left's argument, then Trump could be the last chance. The country will get through the disaster or it won't. How it handles Trump is key.
I was just thinking- that old magic is fading. The magic being that if you denounce a political figure as racist, then their career is over. Now that Obama has practically done that with Trump and his followers, the test of that magic can be seen as still all powerful, or fading fast.
The left's argument boils down to this: If you care about the racist, bigoted country of America, that's only because that's what you are racist yourself. Since Trump wants to "make America great again", then that makes you racist. He's trying to bring back bad old America, which was so unfair to the rest of the world with her prosperity and power.
Until America is punished enough, it is unfit. So Obama is there to punish the country. That's what his speech really means. Punish America ( white people). Until America has been punished and changed enough ( turned non-white) , America must suffer.
I see Trump as America's last chance to right its own ship before she sinks for good.
It's too bad that there are too many people in this country who don't see Obama for what he really is. That's why he was elected twice.
As for Hillary, she's just a crook. I'm sure that if Obama could, he'd replace her with someone more to his liking. Hillary will say anything. She might even pretend to be completely different from Obama, if she thought she had to be in order to win.
She can't suck up to Obama, though. She has to accuse Trump of being racist. That's their playbook. Anyone who tries to defend America, or see her prosper, will be considered an enemy. This is what animates the left.
If too many people are convinced of the left's argument, then Trump could be the last chance. The country will get through the disaster or it won't. How it handles Trump is key.
Obama equals Custer?
Probably not. But when he uses language like he did against Trump, he makes me wonder. Can he really be that stupid? How can a man like this become POTUS? But Custer was said to be interested in the job.
Custer had a little problem on the way toward that ambition. We are stuck with Obama. At least for the moment.
Custer had a little problem on the way toward that ambition. We are stuck with Obama. At least for the moment.
AGW theory is utterly without merit
Again, one may question my qualifications for writing this. Yet, I think I can write it with confidence because, once again, I have discovered something that shows a critical problem with AGW theory.
This time, it is about the scientific method itself. The unfortunate thing is that nobody is taught these things in school. For if these things were actually taught, these AGW people would have no credibility at all. The fact that they have any credibility with people should worry people who do know better.
I got a quote from John S. Lewis' blog about this abuse, during which he criticized the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" as an "eco-porn" film. But the key thing for me was his discussion of the Scientific Method ( without identifying it as such):
If your AGW theory doesn't follow the Scientific Method, then how is it science? It isn't. It's a fraud.
This time, it is about the scientific method itself. The unfortunate thing is that nobody is taught these things in school. For if these things were actually taught, these AGW people would have no credibility at all. The fact that they have any credibility with people should worry people who do know better.
I got a quote from John S. Lewis' blog about this abuse, during which he criticized the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" as an "eco-porn" film. But the key thing for me was his discussion of the Scientific Method ( without identifying it as such):
First, there is the use of the word “evidence” to describe the predictions of models and proxy estimates. Let’s be clear about this: the way science progresses is to 1) collect data, 2) propose one or more ideas, called hypotheses, that might explain the data, 3) use quantitative models of these hypotheses to generate predictions of future observations, and 4) carry out a new round of experiments designed to test (and discriminate between) the competing hypotheses. Steps 1 and 4 deal with evidence (data); step 3 is not evidence; it is informed conjecture, as-yet untested speculation, whose sole purpose is to motivate a search for critical new data, NOT to predict the future. [emphasis added].You hear a lot about the computer models, don't you? But the purpose of the models is not to predict the future, which is being done all the time. Aren't we always hearing how the temperature is going to rise by such and such an amount by the end of the century? According to this quote then, it is an abuse of the scientific method to use MODELS to predict the future. The legitimate use of the models is to search for critical new data.
If your AGW theory doesn't follow the Scientific Method, then how is it science? It isn't. It's a fraud.
Interesting comments section
And this from an article about a toy!
That bit about a SR-71 Blackbird flying at 4k seems a bit of a stretch.
That bit about a SR-71 Blackbird flying at 4k seems a bit of a stretch.
Donald Trump Featured on CBS as Model Citizen for Building Skating Rink in Central Park [YouTube]
Free Republic
You can see it here for the moment. It will probably be taken down because it might hurt somebody politically.
You can see it here for the moment. It will probably be taken down because it might hurt somebody politically.
Establishment to Trump: You Can’t Afford to Run For President
Free Republic
comment:
Quite the revelation, if true. The claim is that Trump doesn't have liquid assets. Well, then. We'll just have to see, won't we?
A reading into that shows that Trump is taking a hit on his business interests. If he is in it for the money, then the report that he is in it for money falls to pieces.
A legitimate question is why is Trump running at all? If it is for money, then that hasn't really worked.
I think he is running because of ego. This is a mountain that he hasn't conquered. If he conquers it, it's another feather in his cap.
I'm hoping that this will make him a good president. Perhaps I'm wrong, but again, we'll just have to see, won't we?
comment:
Quite the revelation, if true. The claim is that Trump doesn't have liquid assets. Well, then. We'll just have to see, won't we?
A reading into that shows that Trump is taking a hit on his business interests. If he is in it for the money, then the report that he is in it for money falls to pieces.
A legitimate question is why is Trump running at all? If it is for money, then that hasn't really worked.
I think he is running because of ego. This is a mountain that he hasn't conquered. If he conquers it, it's another feather in his cap.
I'm hoping that this will make him a good president. Perhaps I'm wrong, but again, we'll just have to see, won't we?
Plant that produces no emissions set to open in Texas
The plant will be built in Texas using a supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) turbine from Toshiba. The plant will demonstrate NET Power's Allam Cycle technology, which uses CO2 as a working fluid to drive a combustion turbine and produces pipeline-quality CO2 that can be sequestered or used in various industrial processes such as enhanced oil recovery.
comment:
Is it a PR gimmick or for real? I'm thinking gimmick. Based upon my own studies of the issue, it doesn't seem likely that you will ever find an economical way to remove carbon from fossil fuels. This means to have a carbon free fuel source, you must eliminate carbon. However, this isn't acceptable. Fortunately, there's always nuclear power.
comment:
Is it a PR gimmick or for real? I'm thinking gimmick. Based upon my own studies of the issue, it doesn't seem likely that you will ever find an economical way to remove carbon from fossil fuels. This means to have a carbon free fuel source, you must eliminate carbon. However, this isn't acceptable. Fortunately, there's always nuclear power.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Sharia is subversive
If it is subversive, then it can be banned. Or can it?
Note: BTW, this is what I forgot about, which was mentioned in the last post. This jogged my memory.
As I've been saying, I am amazed at how something that is so plainly efficacious in ending the threat of terrorism in this country can be so easily cast aside by those who claim to be on the side of national security.
It's not that hard. The argument is going to be that it is too hard.
Look. Read the book, if you can find it, about the KGB. In it, there is a big story about how they tried to infiltrate a so-called "illegal" into the United States for the purposes of espionage. The "illegal" underwent a ton of training, yet he was discovered very quickly by the FBI, and turned to our side. Keep in mind, this case was before the immigration laws were changed in 1965. Back then, there were PSAs on TV which continually reminded "aliens" to register with the government. Obviously, they were serious about stopping people who might do harm to our country once upon a time. Maybe not so much today.
This case referred to was one in which the missiles were discovered in Cuba. Without this policy in effect, which no longer is in effect, the missiles may not have been discovered in time, and Castro would have nuclear missiles in his country. This could have been catastrophic, and it almost resulted in a war anyway.
So you see. Keeping out the bad guys is absolutely necessary. Even ONE of them can be very dangerous.
Trump is right. Unfortunately, too many people in this country don't recognize how important this is.
Sharia is subversive. It undermines the rule of law of any host country that permits it. Why should sharia be any different from any other group- let's say Nazis? We couldn't stop Naziism? Or communism?
Get off it.
Sharia as practiced makes them the enemy. If they practice it, they are subversives and should be removed IMMEDIATELY.
I ask again, those of you in the GOP who have a problem with Trump. What the f*)k is your problem?
Note: BTW, this is what I forgot about, which was mentioned in the last post. This jogged my memory.
As I've been saying, I am amazed at how something that is so plainly efficacious in ending the threat of terrorism in this country can be so easily cast aside by those who claim to be on the side of national security.
It's not that hard. The argument is going to be that it is too hard.
Look. Read the book, if you can find it, about the KGB. In it, there is a big story about how they tried to infiltrate a so-called "illegal" into the United States for the purposes of espionage. The "illegal" underwent a ton of training, yet he was discovered very quickly by the FBI, and turned to our side. Keep in mind, this case was before the immigration laws were changed in 1965. Back then, there were PSAs on TV which continually reminded "aliens" to register with the government. Obviously, they were serious about stopping people who might do harm to our country once upon a time. Maybe not so much today.
This case referred to was one in which the missiles were discovered in Cuba. Without this policy in effect, which no longer is in effect, the missiles may not have been discovered in time, and Castro would have nuclear missiles in his country. This could have been catastrophic, and it almost resulted in a war anyway.
So you see. Keeping out the bad guys is absolutely necessary. Even ONE of them can be very dangerous.
Trump is right. Unfortunately, too many people in this country don't recognize how important this is.
Sharia is subversive. It undermines the rule of law of any host country that permits it. Why should sharia be any different from any other group- let's say Nazis? We couldn't stop Naziism? Or communism?
Get off it.
Sharia as practiced makes them the enemy. If they practice it, they are subversives and should be removed IMMEDIATELY.
I ask again, those of you in the GOP who have a problem with Trump. What the f*)k is your problem?
Thoughts are ephemeral things
Thoughts are ephemeral things- here one instant, and gone
the next. I wanted to hold on to two thoughts, but one
has slipped my mind, while I write about the other.
It had something to do with politics and the state of
the society. Wish I could remember it.
The other is about science:
Does a particle passing by a body with a magnetic field
impart any force to that body? If yes, how much?
And what is the nature of that force?
A thought experiment suggests that it does. Consider two magnets. They are supported on a cushion of air so that any force imposed upon them will cause them to move. Maybe a bit like bumper cars. On the other hand, maybe not. Like Hovercraft, instead. Anyway, the thing can float on air without touching anything that may cause friction.
Let's say you have a power magnet onboard two Hovercraft, and the two craft are heading towards each other head on. The magnets are in front, so the two craft will come within their respective magnetic fields before they bump into one another. What happens? Most likely, the vehicles will be diverted somewhat by the strength of the magnetic fields interacting with each other. Depending upon the strength of the magnetics and the amount of momentum each vehicle possesses, the collision might be averted entirely.
Now imagine if both are sitting still. Advance one, while keeping the other still. The likely outcome of this, I would think, is a pushing of one that's already moving of the one that isn't. The other one will go away from the other ( provided that the magnetic fields are of the same polarity).
I think these two hypothetic scenarios show that some force is being applied to both objects.
The nature of the force that moves the stationary object is kinetic energy. It is being transferred though the magnetic force, which is constant. The kinetic force is variable. Once it is removed, the source of the motion is also removed.
How can this be used for some purpose?
I was thinking of a space drive that enhances the effects of solar wind. Since solar wind is charged particles, it has a magnetic field. Consider a magnetic field of reverse polarity that attracts the charged particles. If you could sweep an larger area than your ship, you can enhance the collection of solar wind particles and thereby capturing their kinetic energy as well. This would impart more acceleration to the craft.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Why Trump is Leading
via TransTerrestrial Musings.
The link links to another article that thoroughly analyzes the race thus far.
Basically, you have three candidates now. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. The analysis favors Rubio, Cruz, and Trump in that order.
You can kid yourself in a number of ways. What puzzles me is why so many on the GOP side decided to dislike a guy who has a number of proposals that would actually work to solve problems, while nobody else seems to have come up with anything comparable.
Perhaps you could count Cruz's gold position as something comparable. Maybe. Winston Churchill tried to take the UK back to the gold standard, but it didn't work out.
Basically, you go for Rubio based upon his perceived ability to defeat Hillary. Cruz maybe not so much. Trump not at all, based upon this analysis.
This assumes that Trump even gets the nomination.
What do I think?
Not smart enough to know for sure. I think Trump wins the whole shooting match.
The link links to another article that thoroughly analyzes the race thus far.
Basically, you have three candidates now. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. The analysis favors Rubio, Cruz, and Trump in that order.
You can kid yourself in a number of ways. What puzzles me is why so many on the GOP side decided to dislike a guy who has a number of proposals that would actually work to solve problems, while nobody else seems to have come up with anything comparable.
Perhaps you could count Cruz's gold position as something comparable. Maybe. Winston Churchill tried to take the UK back to the gold standard, but it didn't work out.
Basically, you go for Rubio based upon his perceived ability to defeat Hillary. Cruz maybe not so much. Trump not at all, based upon this analysis.
This assumes that Trump even gets the nomination.
What do I think?
Not smart enough to know for sure. I think Trump wins the whole shooting match.
End of Obama regime?
Somebody claims to have the goods on Obama
comment:
They had the blue dress too (Monica Blewhimsky) , but did that make any difference?
comment:
They had the blue dress too (Monica Blewhimsky) , but did that make any difference?
A Simple Trick to Install Baseboard Corners Perfectly
There are so many videos like this. I don't know if I can use this technique for anything or not, but it sure is interesting.
Cheech and Chong -- "Coke" scene
Hadn't seen this one before. At least, not that I can recall.
Pretty funny.
Pretty funny.
What does it mean to be a Republican?
You keep hearing things like Trump isn't a real Republican. What the hell is that? Look at what Limbaugh says about the latest budget deal. Yep, the victory in 2014 was meaningless in terms of budget policy. You might as well have Pelosi running the House, and Reid running the Senate again. So, tell me again: what is a Republican?
Oh, they got the okay to export oil. I've got news for you. The price of oil is plummeting. If they think that the US is going to become a big oil exporter, fuggeddabout it. These people basically got NOTHING for all their concessions. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. The price of oil coming down was inevitable. Guess what? The US is not the low cost producer of oil. Saudi Arabia is. We'll be more dependent upon oil than ever before this one gets done. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. The right to oil exporting is nothing when you are priced out of the market. Sheesh.
If you can't muster any opposition to Planned Parenthood butchering babies for money, then what claim do you have upon principle?
If Donald Trump really isn't a Republican, then so what? None of the rest honor what they supposedly are in support of anyway.
Oh, they got the okay to export oil. I've got news for you. The price of oil is plummeting. If they think that the US is going to become a big oil exporter, fuggeddabout it. These people basically got NOTHING for all their concessions. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. The price of oil coming down was inevitable. Guess what? The US is not the low cost producer of oil. Saudi Arabia is. We'll be more dependent upon oil than ever before this one gets done. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. The right to oil exporting is nothing when you are priced out of the market. Sheesh.
If you can't muster any opposition to Planned Parenthood butchering babies for money, then what claim do you have upon principle?
If Donald Trump really isn't a Republican, then so what? None of the rest honor what they supposedly are in support of anyway.
Frog and Scorpion ( reposted for second time )
There's a cartoon in which an Islamic scorpion is riding atop a European frog while swimming across.
This repost doesn't address the Islam per se, but it does address their protectors in this society. There are those who call the cartoon "racist". The point of using the word "racist" is to shut up any discussion. There are very legitimate reasons for keeping Muslims out of America. But our so-called leaders are not very intelligent, nor very wise.
If one comes to the fore, like Trump, who would shut down the Islamization of America, their response is to charge him with racism, or to shut up.
Hence, the repost...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
When it comes to this Climate of Hate stuff, I am reminded of the story of the Frog and Scorpion. It took me a long circuitous route in order to get to this conclusion and it requires some explanation.
This charge being made of "vitriolic" rhetoric that is somehow connected to the shootings in Arizona appears to me to very dishonest. It is the kind of dishonesty that you find in liberals. Surely they are not so dumb as to believe that a few words is going to cause bad things to happen, for if they really believed that, they would tone down their own language. Liberals are not necessarily stupid, despite their appearances sometimes. They just have this problem with basic concepts like integrity, honesty and honor. Use those words around a liberal, and you'll get a sneering response. It is so old fashioned to them.
It reminds me of what Leo Durocher used to say: "Nice guys finish last." Politics is a tough competitive occupation, not unlike competitive sports. Knocking the other guy silly in order to get an edge is okay if you can get away with it. In fact, it ought to be expected. Hence you get the response that the Mahablog had, in which I referenced in an earlier post. Any complaints about the rough tactics are attributed to weakness on the protestors part. Never mind the fact that it is the very same thing that the critics are saying themselves. The critics want their adversaries to tone it down, but that won't be reciprocated. Even more, not only will it not be reciprocated, but any complaints will be characterized as crybabying.
But their is no honor no integrity in the charge. Never mind that, they'll say. Nice guys finish last.
It may be a little starry eyed of me, but I do think that conservatives do care more about honor and integrity than the liberals. I'll buttress that opinion with a few facts which can't be denied. When a conservative breaks a promise, like George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" promise not to raise taxes, the betrayal is taken very seriously. But if a liberal, like Clinton says he "didn't have sex with that woman", and it turns out to be a lie, nobody seems to be shocked. The two sides are judged by different standards. Or to put it more accurately, one side gets judged by its own standards and the other doesn't get judged because it has no standards to begin with.
When I think of liberals, I think of them as the Al Capone types. That may seem a bit harsh, but let me explain. In his book "Success Through a Positive Mental Atttitude", Napoleon Hill discusses his interview with the notorious gangster. When Hill asked Capone why he did the things he did, Capone said "I had to." He felt it was necessary for him to be dishonest. But Hill points out that necessity has nothing to do with the choice of being dishonest. Dishonesty is a choice, nobody forces anybody to be dishonest. Nobody forced Capone to be a gangster. That was his choice. Yet Capone no doubt believed that he was being forced into becoming a gangster. People can rationalize any behavior if it suits them in some way. If it suits the liberals to lie about the conservatives, in particular about a certain tragic event, why they'll just say that they have to. And they'll feel perfectly justified in doing so.
So that brings me back to the Frog and Scorpion parable. It is in the Scorpions' nature to sting the Frog while the Frog is carrying the Scorpion to safety even though it will kill the both of them. The Scorpion can't help itself. It would prefer death to them both than to have his enemies succeed or survive. The Scorpion isn't motivated by good will, but by enmity. Therefore, you can't believe what the "Scorpions" say. If you do, and you trust them, you go down the drink with them.
Update:
This is being reposted from almost two years ago after the Gifford shooting in Arizona. It is about the "Climate of Hate" charge leveled at the right and how the left was attempting to say that this climate caused the shooting.
It is especially important now with what is happening in the election. They may charge the same climate of hate is what is bringing Obama down, if that is indeed what is happening ( Obama going down).
The gold standard is the truth. Obama didn't trust us with the truth. His excuse will be the same as Capone's.
This repost doesn't address the Islam per se, but it does address their protectors in this society. There are those who call the cartoon "racist". The point of using the word "racist" is to shut up any discussion. There are very legitimate reasons for keeping Muslims out of America. But our so-called leaders are not very intelligent, nor very wise.
If one comes to the fore, like Trump, who would shut down the Islamization of America, their response is to charge him with racism, or to shut up.
Hence, the repost...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
When it comes to this Climate of Hate stuff, I am reminded of the story of the Frog and Scorpion. It took me a long circuitous route in order to get to this conclusion and it requires some explanation.
This charge being made of "vitriolic" rhetoric that is somehow connected to the shootings in Arizona appears to me to very dishonest. It is the kind of dishonesty that you find in liberals. Surely they are not so dumb as to believe that a few words is going to cause bad things to happen, for if they really believed that, they would tone down their own language. Liberals are not necessarily stupid, despite their appearances sometimes. They just have this problem with basic concepts like integrity, honesty and honor. Use those words around a liberal, and you'll get a sneering response. It is so old fashioned to them.
It reminds me of what Leo Durocher used to say: "Nice guys finish last." Politics is a tough competitive occupation, not unlike competitive sports. Knocking the other guy silly in order to get an edge is okay if you can get away with it. In fact, it ought to be expected. Hence you get the response that the Mahablog had, in which I referenced in an earlier post. Any complaints about the rough tactics are attributed to weakness on the protestors part. Never mind the fact that it is the very same thing that the critics are saying themselves. The critics want their adversaries to tone it down, but that won't be reciprocated. Even more, not only will it not be reciprocated, but any complaints will be characterized as crybabying.
But their is no honor no integrity in the charge. Never mind that, they'll say. Nice guys finish last.
It may be a little starry eyed of me, but I do think that conservatives do care more about honor and integrity than the liberals. I'll buttress that opinion with a few facts which can't be denied. When a conservative breaks a promise, like George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" promise not to raise taxes, the betrayal is taken very seriously. But if a liberal, like Clinton says he "didn't have sex with that woman", and it turns out to be a lie, nobody seems to be shocked. The two sides are judged by different standards. Or to put it more accurately, one side gets judged by its own standards and the other doesn't get judged because it has no standards to begin with.
When I think of liberals, I think of them as the Al Capone types. That may seem a bit harsh, but let me explain. In his book "Success Through a Positive Mental Atttitude", Napoleon Hill discusses his interview with the notorious gangster. When Hill asked Capone why he did the things he did, Capone said "I had to." He felt it was necessary for him to be dishonest. But Hill points out that necessity has nothing to do with the choice of being dishonest. Dishonesty is a choice, nobody forces anybody to be dishonest. Nobody forced Capone to be a gangster. That was his choice. Yet Capone no doubt believed that he was being forced into becoming a gangster. People can rationalize any behavior if it suits them in some way. If it suits the liberals to lie about the conservatives, in particular about a certain tragic event, why they'll just say that they have to. And they'll feel perfectly justified in doing so.
So that brings me back to the Frog and Scorpion parable. It is in the Scorpions' nature to sting the Frog while the Frog is carrying the Scorpion to safety even though it will kill the both of them. The Scorpion can't help itself. It would prefer death to them both than to have his enemies succeed or survive. The Scorpion isn't motivated by good will, but by enmity. Therefore, you can't believe what the "Scorpions" say. If you do, and you trust them, you go down the drink with them.
Update:
This is being reposted from almost two years ago after the Gifford shooting in Arizona. It is about the "Climate of Hate" charge leveled at the right and how the left was attempting to say that this climate caused the shooting.
It is especially important now with what is happening in the election. They may charge the same climate of hate is what is bringing Obama down, if that is indeed what is happening ( Obama going down).
The gold standard is the truth. Obama didn't trust us with the truth. His excuse will be the same as Capone's.
Friday, December 18, 2015
ParaPundit: Mistake To Overthrow Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi
ParaPundit: Mistake To Overthrow Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi
comment:
The author was quite emphatic about his opposition to the Iraq War from the beginning. I've been reading his blog for a long, long time-- I know. His opposition to Iraq is part of the reason for its failure, which I will note below.
Now, here's the problem: Sure Bush made a mistake going into Iraq. But why was it a mistake? Not because of what would happen over there ( rise of Isis was not due to the invasion, but the failure of it ), but for what happened over HERE ( which caused the failure in the first place ).
Bush could not sustain the political will to see the operation to a final, successful conclusion. He won the war ( so did Nixon in Vietnam ), but lost the peace ( so did Nixon when he had to resign because of Watergate ).
In each instance, the biggest problem with the war was with the political left. For example, Nixon's failure was understandable in the sense that he inherited Vietnam. Bush's failure is that he chose a policy that could not be sustained over the time period required. America cannot sustain such wars for such a long period because of the political left. Nixon didn't choose Vietnam, but Bush chose Iraq. Nixon's failure was unavoidable, but Bush's was. ( Both failed to take into account the left. ) Bush should have learned from Nixon, but he did worse in choosing a war that he could not see to a final successful conclusion. The left was going to demolish whatever he accomplished in Iraq, and so they did. In summary then, Bush failed to learn from history. We should know from history that the political left will not allow America to win a war.
The big payoff for the left was the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Instead of getting back at Bush, as with Nixon, they got back at America, which initially supported Bush. So America is punished with a leftist president determined to make her suffer.
I had a bad feeling about the invasion of Iraq, and I was right. Nothing good could come from a strategic error like that. If you cannot keep the left at bay, you are going to lose a war. So, don't get into a war, and especially a long one.
Unfortunately, being right isn't good enough. Not even for something as simple as getting credit for being right.
The world doesn't work that way.
I'll be right about a lot more things before its over. But I won't profit from it, most likely.
comment:
The author was quite emphatic about his opposition to the Iraq War from the beginning. I've been reading his blog for a long, long time-- I know. His opposition to Iraq is part of the reason for its failure, which I will note below.
Now, here's the problem: Sure Bush made a mistake going into Iraq. But why was it a mistake? Not because of what would happen over there ( rise of Isis was not due to the invasion, but the failure of it ), but for what happened over HERE ( which caused the failure in the first place ).
Bush could not sustain the political will to see the operation to a final, successful conclusion. He won the war ( so did Nixon in Vietnam ), but lost the peace ( so did Nixon when he had to resign because of Watergate ).
In each instance, the biggest problem with the war was with the political left. For example, Nixon's failure was understandable in the sense that he inherited Vietnam. Bush's failure is that he chose a policy that could not be sustained over the time period required. America cannot sustain such wars for such a long period because of the political left. Nixon didn't choose Vietnam, but Bush chose Iraq. Nixon's failure was unavoidable, but Bush's was. ( Both failed to take into account the left. ) Bush should have learned from Nixon, but he did worse in choosing a war that he could not see to a final successful conclusion. The left was going to demolish whatever he accomplished in Iraq, and so they did. In summary then, Bush failed to learn from history. We should know from history that the political left will not allow America to win a war.
The big payoff for the left was the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Instead of getting back at Bush, as with Nixon, they got back at America, which initially supported Bush. So America is punished with a leftist president determined to make her suffer.
I had a bad feeling about the invasion of Iraq, and I was right. Nothing good could come from a strategic error like that. If you cannot keep the left at bay, you are going to lose a war. So, don't get into a war, and especially a long one.
Unfortunately, being right isn't good enough. Not even for something as simple as getting credit for being right.
The world doesn't work that way.
I'll be right about a lot more things before its over. But I won't profit from it, most likely.
Bad medicine kemosabe
Lots of things are at the moment.
I'm not working today. Things are bad. Still hoping for the best, though.
With my free time, been looking around the web. The Fed raised rates and the stock market is taking it kinda hard. The markets are quite treacherous, even in good times. There was something on Kitco that makes it seem like a bear market in staring us in the face. That's for stocks. For gold? Seems like some are predicting hard times there, but wait... gold is up today. Bonds are up too, so perhaps we are seeing a flight to safety.
Dick Morris caught Hillary in another lie.
Hillary looks Machiavellian. I saw something on Ace of Spades that will test you and see how much you are on the dark side. I took the test. But I won't share the results with you. How Machiavellian of me.
But mine is nothing compared to Hillary. She can try on the Darth suit any time now. Darth Hillary! Bwah, hah, hah!
Seriously, how does this woman stay in the race at all? We must have a country full of Darth Hillarys.
Bad medicine, kemosabe.
Morris also said that Cruz thumped Rubio in the debate. I recall that a Rubio supporter didn't take it well. If they bolt the party because of a Trump Cruz possibility, then that too is bad medicine kemosabe.
Looking bad all around. Yeah, and this old computer is limping along looking like it may not last much longer.
I'm not working today. Things are bad. Still hoping for the best, though.
With my free time, been looking around the web. The Fed raised rates and the stock market is taking it kinda hard. The markets are quite treacherous, even in good times. There was something on Kitco that makes it seem like a bear market in staring us in the face. That's for stocks. For gold? Seems like some are predicting hard times there, but wait... gold is up today. Bonds are up too, so perhaps we are seeing a flight to safety.
Dick Morris caught Hillary in another lie.
Hillary looks Machiavellian. I saw something on Ace of Spades that will test you and see how much you are on the dark side. I took the test. But I won't share the results with you. How Machiavellian of me.
But mine is nothing compared to Hillary. She can try on the Darth suit any time now. Darth Hillary! Bwah, hah, hah!
Seriously, how does this woman stay in the race at all? We must have a country full of Darth Hillarys.
Bad medicine, kemosabe.
Morris also said that Cruz thumped Rubio in the debate. I recall that a Rubio supporter didn't take it well. If they bolt the party because of a Trump Cruz possibility, then that too is bad medicine kemosabe.
Looking bad all around. Yeah, and this old computer is limping along looking like it may not last much longer.
If this isn't true, then the postmodernists are right
Gospel of John 4:19
People make such a big deal out of little things.
If God isn't for truth, then there can be no God. I'm sure that the postmodernists would agree, even though they don't believe that truth exists anyway.
I thought that reproved was a bit archaic, so I looked it up. It means gentle correction. So evil hates even gentle correction. Sounds right to me!And this is the condemnation;that light has come into the world,and men loved darkness rather than light,because their deeds were evil.For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds be reproved.But he that doeth truth cometh to the light,that his deeds may be made manifest,that they are wrought in God.
People make such a big deal out of little things.
If God isn't for truth, then there can be no God. I'm sure that the postmodernists would agree, even though they don't believe that truth exists anyway.
About that metal worker demonstration
It is excellent. I hoped to do something like that with the theory of global warming. But words aren't enough. You really have to show what you are talking about. How do you show, in a demonstration like this, that man-made global warming ( AGW ) is false?
Perhaps you don't need to really. Just consider this--- all of the argument depends upon the notion that a gas will trap heat. Then, to demonstrate this, you would have to show something that shows the unsuitability of gases in general to trap heat. Gases aren't any good at that, and it is a good thing, because if they weren't, your automobile's engine couldn't run.
What makes the engine run is the fact that gases will expand in the presence of heat. It will expand proportionally to the amount of heat. The greater the heat, the greater the expansion. So, you take a small amount of gas, heat it up in an explosion that takes place in the cylinder of an engine, and that expansion causes a powerful force to push the piston down. The downward push of the piston causes the crankshaft to rotate, which is transmitted to the wheels of your car, and your car can move. Without this property of gases, otherwise known as the Gas Law, your car couldn't move.
What happens to the gas when it expands? It cools back down. It's a beautiful thing. By the time it reaches the exhaust pipe, it has already cooled down considerably. If it hadn't, it would be a fire hazard.
So, considering this fact, which is the Gas Law, how can it be possible then, that gases can hold heat?
It is an absurd contention.
Auto engines aren't the only example. Take hot air balloons. If the hot air inside the balloon didn't expand, the balloon wouldn't rise. That's because as the air expands when heated inside the balloon, it becomes less dense than the surrounding air. As it become less dense, it is then capable of rising, as a bubble rises in water. If air didn't expand when hot, the balloon stays on the ground.
Another example? Fire pistons. These little gizmos may save your life some day. They work on the principles of the Gas Laws. You compress the gas in a tiny cylinder, which makes it HOT. Hot enough to start a fire. If this didn't happen, fire pistons would be useless to start fires. Why does it get hot? Because the temperature is contained within the gas. As it is compressed, it is in a smaller region, and thus it has to heat up. Temperature is proportional to volume. There's an equation for it--- PV equals nRT. Where pressure equals p, v equals volume, and n is number of molecules ( moles ), and r is a constant for all gases, while T is temperature. The equation shows that pressure times volume is directly proportional to temperature. Thus, as pressure increases in the piston, so must the temperature. A fire piston! A beautiful thing.
AGW isn't science. It is a fraud.
Perhaps you don't need to really. Just consider this--- all of the argument depends upon the notion that a gas will trap heat. Then, to demonstrate this, you would have to show something that shows the unsuitability of gases in general to trap heat. Gases aren't any good at that, and it is a good thing, because if they weren't, your automobile's engine couldn't run.
What makes the engine run is the fact that gases will expand in the presence of heat. It will expand proportionally to the amount of heat. The greater the heat, the greater the expansion. So, you take a small amount of gas, heat it up in an explosion that takes place in the cylinder of an engine, and that expansion causes a powerful force to push the piston down. The downward push of the piston causes the crankshaft to rotate, which is transmitted to the wheels of your car, and your car can move. Without this property of gases, otherwise known as the Gas Law, your car couldn't move.
What happens to the gas when it expands? It cools back down. It's a beautiful thing. By the time it reaches the exhaust pipe, it has already cooled down considerably. If it hadn't, it would be a fire hazard.
So, considering this fact, which is the Gas Law, how can it be possible then, that gases can hold heat?
It is an absurd contention.
Auto engines aren't the only example. Take hot air balloons. If the hot air inside the balloon didn't expand, the balloon wouldn't rise. That's because as the air expands when heated inside the balloon, it becomes less dense than the surrounding air. As it become less dense, it is then capable of rising, as a bubble rises in water. If air didn't expand when hot, the balloon stays on the ground.
Another example? Fire pistons. These little gizmos may save your life some day. They work on the principles of the Gas Laws. You compress the gas in a tiny cylinder, which makes it HOT. Hot enough to start a fire. If this didn't happen, fire pistons would be useless to start fires. Why does it get hot? Because the temperature is contained within the gas. As it is compressed, it is in a smaller region, and thus it has to heat up. Temperature is proportional to volume. There's an equation for it--- PV equals nRT. Where pressure equals p, v equals volume, and n is number of molecules ( moles ), and r is a constant for all gases, while T is temperature. The equation shows that pressure times volume is directly proportional to temperature. Thus, as pressure increases in the piston, so must the temperature. A fire piston! A beautiful thing.
AGW isn't science. It is a fraud.
Obligatory, 12.18.15; If it wasn't official before, it is now. Michael Moore is an idiot.
"And while we’re on the topic of New York, food and jihad, Michael Moore holds up ‘We Are All Muslim’ sign at Trump Tower."- Instapunidit
Let's see Michael Moore pray five times and day and make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Let's see he join his Muslim brethren, and call for sharia in the United States. Let's see him join Isis and join the jihad, so that dream can be realized!
What a complete and total idiot.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Noon break; 12.17.15; Light chores about the house
This new schedule of mine will have a few hours in the middle of the day for me to do things that I'd like to do. Under the old schedule, all these things had to be put off for the weekend.
Isn't that nice?
If there's a problem with it, it's too short. I'd like more time. Always more time.
But that's not what I'm going to focus on right now. It's been almost two weeks since the last post on the trip out west, and preparations for the move out there.
So, with my spare time, I threw out some more junk. I'd like to get this pile of junk down to the bare minimum. How much junk can I take with me? I'd like to use as much of this stuff as I can, but that may be totally unrealistic.
Briefly, the plan is to convert the van to an RV. Then take this trailer I've got, and convert it to something that can be shelter that I can pull along with me. If I were to follow this option, the moving van is out. Which kinda looks like the right choice because spending money is just not the ticket. The less that I have to spend the better. That means the van, the trailer, and the car will be the biggest pieces. What to do with the car? If I have a trailer, how do I accommodate a car in that entourage as well?
I considered at one time a rental space for the car. It will stay in town, and the van plus trailer will go back and forth between town and country. I can be town rat and country rat at the same time. What versatility!
The costs would be for the time I was in town at an RV spot, plus the cost of the storage spot. Plus traveling costs back and forth between town and country.
Prev Next
Isn't that nice?
If there's a problem with it, it's too short. I'd like more time. Always more time.
But that's not what I'm going to focus on right now. It's been almost two weeks since the last post on the trip out west, and preparations for the move out there.
So, with my spare time, I threw out some more junk. I'd like to get this pile of junk down to the bare minimum. How much junk can I take with me? I'd like to use as much of this stuff as I can, but that may be totally unrealistic.
Briefly, the plan is to convert the van to an RV. Then take this trailer I've got, and convert it to something that can be shelter that I can pull along with me. If I were to follow this option, the moving van is out. Which kinda looks like the right choice because spending money is just not the ticket. The less that I have to spend the better. That means the van, the trailer, and the car will be the biggest pieces. What to do with the car? If I have a trailer, how do I accommodate a car in that entourage as well?
I considered at one time a rental space for the car. It will stay in town, and the van plus trailer will go back and forth between town and country. I can be town rat and country rat at the same time. What versatility!
The costs would be for the time I was in town at an RV spot, plus the cost of the storage spot. Plus traveling costs back and forth between town and country.
Prev Next
Obligatory, 12.17.15; Last full week before Xmas
What's this "Xmas"? It's what it used to be called. Maybe it is just called "holidays" these days. This political correctness stuff may have been around a little longer than you think.
Not to get into religion or anything. The latest topic has been politics.
I checked out Limbaugh just now, and didn't really see anything in his headlines that grabbed my attention, so I read sort of a summary of the debate. Not too different than mine.
But yesterday went by so fast, and today is going by so fast that I didn't get to expound a little on my thoughts.
I keep hearing about how Trump's ideas are "nonserious". Really? Well, let me tell you. If there's anybody in this race that is saying something serious in terms of what would work against terrorism and illegal immigration, and even against drugs, it is this guy. Who the heck has been "nonserious" all these years if it isn't the GOP? At times, these guys sound just like the Democrats. If they sound just like the Democrats, what good are they for?
It just seems to me that anytime somebody comes up with an idea that will work, it gets shot down. We can't ban Muslims. Why not? Sharia is sedition. More than half of Muslims in this country want it. It is sedition. What are we doing? Legalizing sedition? How serious is that?
Get off of it, you people.
One thought I had yesterday is that so many of these anti-Trump people are writers. Yeah? If they are writers, and against Trump because he says "dumb" things, then tell me why banning Muslims won't work? Unconstitutional? Bravo Sierra. There's no right to sedition. Just like there's no right to abortion, and no right to homos marrying each other. But they are the law of the land! Why don't these get shot down, but only banning Muslims won't work???? Because banning Muslims would actually help this country.
That's what I'm getting at.
Wake up.
Not to get into religion or anything. The latest topic has been politics.
I checked out Limbaugh just now, and didn't really see anything in his headlines that grabbed my attention, so I read sort of a summary of the debate. Not too different than mine.
But yesterday went by so fast, and today is going by so fast that I didn't get to expound a little on my thoughts.
I keep hearing about how Trump's ideas are "nonserious". Really? Well, let me tell you. If there's anybody in this race that is saying something serious in terms of what would work against terrorism and illegal immigration, and even against drugs, it is this guy. Who the heck has been "nonserious" all these years if it isn't the GOP? At times, these guys sound just like the Democrats. If they sound just like the Democrats, what good are they for?
It just seems to me that anytime somebody comes up with an idea that will work, it gets shot down. We can't ban Muslims. Why not? Sharia is sedition. More than half of Muslims in this country want it. It is sedition. What are we doing? Legalizing sedition? How serious is that?
Get off of it, you people.
One thought I had yesterday is that so many of these anti-Trump people are writers. Yeah? If they are writers, and against Trump because he says "dumb" things, then tell me why banning Muslims won't work? Unconstitutional? Bravo Sierra. There's no right to sedition. Just like there's no right to abortion, and no right to homos marrying each other. But they are the law of the land! Why don't these get shot down, but only banning Muslims won't work???? Because banning Muslims would actually help this country.
That's what I'm getting at.
Wake up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)