Pros and Cons of Stucco Homes | DoItYourself.com
Is it an option to use on the project I'm doing? It's cost can be higher than other types of siding, according to this article. But the amount I would use would be small, so this may not be a factor.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
AGW discussion ( ad nauseum )
Yep, here I am again with this. Just wondering why you guys who believe this stuff actually believe it when it cannot possibly be science.
Okay, that is quite a statement, but I think I have backed it all up with these posts. If that weren't enough for you, in case you had any doubts, maybe this latest thing might do it for you finally...
How much biomass gets produced each year? Why is this important? Because biomass comes from photosynthesis. All of it does. The process of photosynthesis takes up the carbon dioxide from the air and creates the biomass. Hence, a comparison between the amount of biomass being produced each year and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be an interesting comparison, might it not?
The amount of biomass produced each year is 100 billion tons per year. That's 1 times 10 to the 11th power, or 1e11 tons. Or 2k times that for pounds, which yields 2e14 pounds. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the mass of the atmosphere divided by 2500 because 400 parts per million is 400/ 1e6 or 2.5 e3, which is 5.5 quadrillion tons ( 5.5 e 15 or 11 e 18 pounds ) divided by 2.5 e3 giving
4.4e15 pounds. Or about 20 times as much carbon dioxide as amount of biomass produced each year. Note: It took over a century for human activity to increase carbon dioxide by 200 parts per million. One or two parts per year. That's less than the biomass being produced each year.
The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel and cement production was said to be 36 gigatons per year. About 1/3 the amount of biomass production. Note: we aren't even counting bacteria in the biomass.
Question: Could it be that nature takes care of the carbon being produced and the accumulation is due to a factor other than human activity?
Okay, that is quite a statement, but I think I have backed it all up with these posts. If that weren't enough for you, in case you had any doubts, maybe this latest thing might do it for you finally...
How much biomass gets produced each year? Why is this important? Because biomass comes from photosynthesis. All of it does. The process of photosynthesis takes up the carbon dioxide from the air and creates the biomass. Hence, a comparison between the amount of biomass being produced each year and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be an interesting comparison, might it not?
The amount of biomass produced each year is 100 billion tons per year. That's 1 times 10 to the 11th power, or 1e11 tons. Or 2k times that for pounds, which yields 2e14 pounds. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the mass of the atmosphere divided by 2500 because 400 parts per million is 400/ 1e6 or 2.5 e3, which is 5.5 quadrillion tons ( 5.5 e 15 or 11 e 18 pounds ) divided by 2.5 e3 giving
4.4e15 pounds. Or about 20 times as much carbon dioxide as amount of biomass produced each year. Note: It took over a century for human activity to increase carbon dioxide by 200 parts per million. One or two parts per year. That's less than the biomass being produced each year.
The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel and cement production was said to be 36 gigatons per year. About 1/3 the amount of biomass production. Note: we aren't even counting bacteria in the biomass.
Question: Could it be that nature takes care of the carbon being produced and the accumulation is due to a factor other than human activity?
Computer security
As I'm typing this, my desktop is updating with a new version of computer security software. This seems to happen quite often, and I'm wondering if it is all really necessary. Or, in other words, if computer users are being scammed for money.
There really shouldn't be a security issue with operating system software. The fact that there is leads me to believe that it is a feature, not a bug. By feature, I mean that the need for computer security is said to be pitched to you for your protection, by its really in existence so as to fleece you, so it is in the interest of the provider, get it?
If I had the time ( if only, if only, if only ), I would try to find a solution for this and migrate to Linux. However, Linux may not necessarily be any better. If it were truly based upon Unix, then there wouldn't be a security issue. ( if what I heard about Unix is correct )
Linux is open source, so whatever solution would also be open source. If there's a way around this, the hackers would easily find it.
But if the operating system is truly bullet proof, then the hackers wouldn't matter anyway.
There really shouldn't be a security issue with operating system software. The fact that there is leads me to believe that it is a feature, not a bug. By feature, I mean that the need for computer security is said to be pitched to you for your protection, by its really in existence so as to fleece you, so it is in the interest of the provider, get it?
If I had the time ( if only, if only, if only ), I would try to find a solution for this and migrate to Linux. However, Linux may not necessarily be any better. If it were truly based upon Unix, then there wouldn't be a security issue. ( if what I heard about Unix is correct )
Linux is open source, so whatever solution would also be open source. If there's a way around this, the hackers would easily find it.
But if the operating system is truly bullet proof, then the hackers wouldn't matter anyway.
Obligatory, 9/5/15
As it can be seen, I'm not working. Got up late, so a late start is the same as no start at all as far as I'm concerned. Today will be a day for semi-rest and to get caught up on a few things. Perhaps I will work a bit tomorrow and definitely on Monday.
Something I've been thinking about lately, but not posting, is my coffin concept for the RV van conversion.
This will be the addition I've been mentioned that will be constructed on the top of the van, and will function as a sleeper. Now, there's nothing new there, but the thing that is new is the idea of just insulating the coffin, which will be placed in the area. It will only be about 2.5x2.5x6 feet in size. With those dimensions, one can calculate the BTU. While I was at it, I calculated what I think would be the worst case scenario in terms of heating needed on a 10 degree night. It seems to be within the realm of possibility that it can be handled.
You can even use the solarium set up that I'm thinking of. Solarium? Yeah, the trailer I bought won't be used as living quarters if I'm going to use the van. So, the trailer can be made into a solarium. The solarium will have the passive water heater thingie I bought awhile back. The heated water can supply some of the heat for the worst case scenario set up mentioned above. In the end, I may reduce my electrical demand down to near zero!
Update:
Did a measurement of the van: To put a rack on top, it could be 64 inches wide by 124 inches long. This could be adjusted as desired. If the cattle panels are bent into vertical shape, then they would be 3 feet tall and 10 feet long by 50 inches wide. That leaves 14 inches on the side. You could put 8 inch boards down each side and overlap the cattle panel by an inch on each side. Bada bing, bada boom. Another idea is to use a real door, but install it sideways. Crazy!
One more thing: Instead of using the trailer bed as a solarium, make it the floor bed of the sleeper. Then metal can be attached to metal ( provided there's a way to do that. Maybe with clamps. )
This one goes in the power and electricity subseries of the off-the-grid series of posts.
Prev Next
Something I've been thinking about lately, but not posting, is my coffin concept for the RV van conversion.
This will be the addition I've been mentioned that will be constructed on the top of the van, and will function as a sleeper. Now, there's nothing new there, but the thing that is new is the idea of just insulating the coffin, which will be placed in the area. It will only be about 2.5x2.5x6 feet in size. With those dimensions, one can calculate the BTU. While I was at it, I calculated what I think would be the worst case scenario in terms of heating needed on a 10 degree night. It seems to be within the realm of possibility that it can be handled.
 |
| Worst case power requirement scenario for coffin set up for RV van. |
Update:
Did a measurement of the van: To put a rack on top, it could be 64 inches wide by 124 inches long. This could be adjusted as desired. If the cattle panels are bent into vertical shape, then they would be 3 feet tall and 10 feet long by 50 inches wide. That leaves 14 inches on the side. You could put 8 inch boards down each side and overlap the cattle panel by an inch on each side. Bada bing, bada boom. Another idea is to use a real door, but install it sideways. Crazy!
One more thing: Instead of using the trailer bed as a solarium, make it the floor bed of the sleeper. Then metal can be attached to metal ( provided there's a way to do that. Maybe with clamps. )
This one goes in the power and electricity subseries of the off-the-grid series of posts.
Prev Next
Friday, September 4, 2015
Home again, 9/4/15
Yes, home again, and the start of the holiday weekend.
What was I doing this time last year? Down at the ranch, but not this year. Nope, this year, I will stay home.
I made 4 trips last year, but only 1 so far this year. Perhaps there won't be any more this year at all. Need to buckle down on the expenses and pay for all this stuff I've been buying.
What will I be doing next year at this time? Probably not living on the land yet. But perhaps visiting it more often if I am living in El Paso. Haven't decided on that one yet. Big uncertainty about making the bucks out there that I need.
Or, perhaps the stock market can really tank, and I may come into some money. ( wishful thinking )
The thought occurred to me that I may want to keep on working to age 65. Then I'd have more money each month and wouldn't have to worry as much about it.
But five years is a long time.
Anyway, time to button things up here at the house and maybe I'll be ready when the time comes.
What was I doing this time last year? Down at the ranch, but not this year. Nope, this year, I will stay home.
I made 4 trips last year, but only 1 so far this year. Perhaps there won't be any more this year at all. Need to buckle down on the expenses and pay for all this stuff I've been buying.
What will I be doing next year at this time? Probably not living on the land yet. But perhaps visiting it more often if I am living in El Paso. Haven't decided on that one yet. Big uncertainty about making the bucks out there that I need.
Or, perhaps the stock market can really tank, and I may come into some money. ( wishful thinking )
The thought occurred to me that I may want to keep on working to age 65. Then I'd have more money each month and wouldn't have to worry as much about it.
But five years is a long time.
Anyway, time to button things up here at the house and maybe I'll be ready when the time comes.
Obligatory, 9/4/15
Back to the question again. Why do people believe what they believe?
For example, why would you believe in AGW, but not in Scripture? Why is that?
Well, the answer could be something along the lines that AGW is Science, and Scripture is Religion. But, I think I have shown that AGW isn't science after all. It is a religion.
Do you really believe that AGW is a Science? Then, what is Science? Does Science ever say that the "debate is over"? Does Science ever claim that those who do not believe a theory is a heretic of some kind, and therefore must be punished? Al Gore wants to punish those who deny AGW. No, in Science there are no sacred cows. There's nothing that cannot be overthrown by a new, more compelling theory. In Science, nothing is written in Stone, like the Ten Commandments. But, wait. AGW is written in Stone, thou must not question it. Science is always trying to overthrow what came previously. Science is always trying to disprove a theory. Science will allow for dissenting opinions, indeed REQUIRES it. AGW violates Science, it does not affirm it at all.
For example, why would you believe in AGW, but not in Scripture? Why is that?
Well, the answer could be something along the lines that AGW is Science, and Scripture is Religion. But, I think I have shown that AGW isn't science after all. It is a religion.
Do you really believe that AGW is a Science? Then, what is Science? Does Science ever say that the "debate is over"? Does Science ever claim that those who do not believe a theory is a heretic of some kind, and therefore must be punished? Al Gore wants to punish those who deny AGW. No, in Science there are no sacred cows. There's nothing that cannot be overthrown by a new, more compelling theory. In Science, nothing is written in Stone, like the Ten Commandments. But, wait. AGW is written in Stone, thou must not question it. Science is always trying to overthrow what came previously. Science is always trying to disprove a theory. Science will allow for dissenting opinions, indeed REQUIRES it. AGW violates Science, it does not affirm it at all.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
More AGW skepticism
This is something of a continuation of the post that attempts to address what people believe.
In the previous post, I discussed the AGW theory and how that really isn't science, but a belief. My assertion, right? So, I've had plenty of posts that dissects this down to nothing. So, for me, the question for anybody reading this who believes in AGW, how can you believe it after what I've just written? How is that possible?
That's kinda what I'm getting at. Why do people believe what they believe?
I can go on and on about why this AGW isn't science, but it won't register with the true believers because their point of view isn't rational. I mean, how?
Here's another thing about AGW to consider:
The buildup of carbon dioxide is blamed for AGW. As I have pointed out, this buildup doesn't amount to much. In fact, the carbon dioxide concentration is about 400 parts per million. That's 1 part in 2500. If it were in pounds, it would be like a bottle of water v. the weight of a small car.
This little bottle of water has to keep that little car warmer than it would ordinarily be. Remember the experiment I did with 1 pound of water by boiling it? It goes back to room temperature in about an hour. Yet, the carbon dioxide is supposed to retain its heat for much longer than that.
If the bottle of water was to be compared with water, it would be like 1 pound of water v. 2500 pounds of water. It would take 2500 times more BTUs to heat up that 2500 pounds than that 1 pound of bottled water. That's a lot of energy right there, if you were to think of it. It has to keep that 2500 constantly at 1 degree farenheit warmer than it would be otherwise. All of that from a little bitty bottle? It has to do that all night when the sun isn't shining. Lots of energy, pal. Lots of energy.
That little bottle of water would have to be a powerhouse of energy. That fact of the matter is that you couldn't put that much energy into it. It isn't possible.
But that is what would have to happen for such a small amount of carbon dioxide to heat up an entire atmosphere and keep it warm for the entire night when the sun doesn't shine. The ratios for carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is that same as for that example given above. The example was to show what the AGW theorists want you to believe. One of the problems with AGW then, is scale. What they propose doesn't scale up the way they are claiming. It's because there just isn't that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Not to mention the other points I have already made.
You may as well believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy than to believe in AGW. Yet, you are going to get people who will swear up and down that I'm a tool of BIG OIL and/or a fool. They will point to the authorities and say "there". But there's no "there there". But the believers will insist that there is.
It's all about belief and nothing else.
In the previous post, I discussed the AGW theory and how that really isn't science, but a belief. My assertion, right? So, I've had plenty of posts that dissects this down to nothing. So, for me, the question for anybody reading this who believes in AGW, how can you believe it after what I've just written? How is that possible?
That's kinda what I'm getting at. Why do people believe what they believe?
I can go on and on about why this AGW isn't science, but it won't register with the true believers because their point of view isn't rational. I mean, how?
Here's another thing about AGW to consider:
The buildup of carbon dioxide is blamed for AGW. As I have pointed out, this buildup doesn't amount to much. In fact, the carbon dioxide concentration is about 400 parts per million. That's 1 part in 2500. If it were in pounds, it would be like a bottle of water v. the weight of a small car.
This little bottle of water has to keep that little car warmer than it would ordinarily be. Remember the experiment I did with 1 pound of water by boiling it? It goes back to room temperature in about an hour. Yet, the carbon dioxide is supposed to retain its heat for much longer than that.
If the bottle of water was to be compared with water, it would be like 1 pound of water v. 2500 pounds of water. It would take 2500 times more BTUs to heat up that 2500 pounds than that 1 pound of bottled water. That's a lot of energy right there, if you were to think of it. It has to keep that 2500 constantly at 1 degree farenheit warmer than it would be otherwise. All of that from a little bitty bottle? It has to do that all night when the sun isn't shining. Lots of energy, pal. Lots of energy.
That little bottle of water would have to be a powerhouse of energy. That fact of the matter is that you couldn't put that much energy into it. It isn't possible.
But that is what would have to happen for such a small amount of carbon dioxide to heat up an entire atmosphere and keep it warm for the entire night when the sun doesn't shine. The ratios for carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is that same as for that example given above. The example was to show what the AGW theorists want you to believe. One of the problems with AGW then, is scale. What they propose doesn't scale up the way they are claiming. It's because there just isn't that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Not to mention the other points I have already made.
You may as well believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy than to believe in AGW. Yet, you are going to get people who will swear up and down that I'm a tool of BIG OIL and/or a fool. They will point to the authorities and say "there". But there's no "there there". But the believers will insist that there is.
It's all about belief and nothing else.
Obligatory, 9/3/15
Why do people believe what they believe?
That's a question I sometimes think up when I've criticized AGW. But it can also apply to just about anything that requires a belief, such as a religion.
This is likely to be a think piece, and by rights, should be lengthy. Since there is little time for this, shall I write it? Certainly not now, but perhaps over the course of the next several days.
What have I written thus far? It seems that I've been dancing around this subject for at least a month, probably more. I've checked my "morality" subtopic in the category listings, and the last post I found on it included a piece on the failings of Christianity. This is bound to upset those who believe in it. As for me, I pretty much have been struggling with it all my adult life. It's off and on. Currently, I am feeling pretty rational, so I'm moving into the skeptical range of that. But if it upsets, it probably shouldn't. The best way to approach a religion may well be from the skeptical side. If you can satisfy the doubts, then you can believe in it with all your heart.
But would most people approach it like that? No. When I watched the video last night, it was revealed that--- during the persecutions during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian, many of those who professed to be Christians, rather easily gave it up for clemency. Evidently, many of those who professed a belief were rather weak in it. There were those who kept with it, and were persecuted for it. Diocletian's persecutions were among the worst, so I understand. So, I'm going to go out on the limb and say that most people don't really believe in what they say they believe.
Yet, people have to believe in something. I'd say it is almost one of the most fundamental of needs. But it isn't "carved in stone". People can be quite malleable in what they believe in.
The same is with AGW. You can end that "faith" rather easily like Diocletian did. Perhaps even easier without the need for persecutions. You can certainly disprove a faith, any faith like AGW. Make no mistake, the AGW business is part of the complex of behaviors that can be called a religion. AGW is like "creation science". It is a religion masquerading as a science. It is definitely not science, nor is AGW.
You challenge that AGW is a faith? Well, consider this: AGW proponents probably believe a complex of ideas that inevitably turn to the belief that whatever man creates is bad, and whatever nature does is okay. Thus, anything "man-made" is to be avoided. You are to avoid foods that are grown with pesticides and fertilizers, for example. They must be "organic". It follows the same line throughout. You cannot solve the AGW issue without reducing the population down to what it was before the Industrial Revolution. Make no mistake, the Industrial Revolution was the single most bad thing in the minds of those who believe in AGW. For that is when man's inventions started being a real threat to Mother Earth.
Look at it this way: AGW is part of the complex of behaviors that can be described as nature worshipping. Nature is their God. Anything that man does is "fallen", and therefore evil. Consequently, if you try to cure man's problems with more of man's inventions, you only get even more problems and more evil. That's why the AGW crowd really isn't interested in solving the AGW "problem". For the "problem" is much deeper than carbon dioxide.
If you try to reason with a true believer, you will get nowhere. Reason can't overwhelm faith. Hence, all attempts to show how this isn't really a problem, and even if it were a problem, it could be fixed --- must always fail with these people. To acknowledge your point means to acknowledge a failure in your faith.
That's a question I sometimes think up when I've criticized AGW. But it can also apply to just about anything that requires a belief, such as a religion.
This is likely to be a think piece, and by rights, should be lengthy. Since there is little time for this, shall I write it? Certainly not now, but perhaps over the course of the next several days.
What have I written thus far? It seems that I've been dancing around this subject for at least a month, probably more. I've checked my "morality" subtopic in the category listings, and the last post I found on it included a piece on the failings of Christianity. This is bound to upset those who believe in it. As for me, I pretty much have been struggling with it all my adult life. It's off and on. Currently, I am feeling pretty rational, so I'm moving into the skeptical range of that. But if it upsets, it probably shouldn't. The best way to approach a religion may well be from the skeptical side. If you can satisfy the doubts, then you can believe in it with all your heart.
But would most people approach it like that? No. When I watched the video last night, it was revealed that--- during the persecutions during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian, many of those who professed to be Christians, rather easily gave it up for clemency. Evidently, many of those who professed a belief were rather weak in it. There were those who kept with it, and were persecuted for it. Diocletian's persecutions were among the worst, so I understand. So, I'm going to go out on the limb and say that most people don't really believe in what they say they believe.
Yet, people have to believe in something. I'd say it is almost one of the most fundamental of needs. But it isn't "carved in stone". People can be quite malleable in what they believe in.
The same is with AGW. You can end that "faith" rather easily like Diocletian did. Perhaps even easier without the need for persecutions. You can certainly disprove a faith, any faith like AGW. Make no mistake, the AGW business is part of the complex of behaviors that can be called a religion. AGW is like "creation science". It is a religion masquerading as a science. It is definitely not science, nor is AGW.
You challenge that AGW is a faith? Well, consider this: AGW proponents probably believe a complex of ideas that inevitably turn to the belief that whatever man creates is bad, and whatever nature does is okay. Thus, anything "man-made" is to be avoided. You are to avoid foods that are grown with pesticides and fertilizers, for example. They must be "organic". It follows the same line throughout. You cannot solve the AGW issue without reducing the population down to what it was before the Industrial Revolution. Make no mistake, the Industrial Revolution was the single most bad thing in the minds of those who believe in AGW. For that is when man's inventions started being a real threat to Mother Earth.
Look at it this way: AGW is part of the complex of behaviors that can be described as nature worshipping. Nature is their God. Anything that man does is "fallen", and therefore evil. Consequently, if you try to cure man's problems with more of man's inventions, you only get even more problems and more evil. That's why the AGW crowd really isn't interested in solving the AGW "problem". For the "problem" is much deeper than carbon dioxide.
If you try to reason with a true believer, you will get nowhere. Reason can't overwhelm faith. Hence, all attempts to show how this isn't really a problem, and even if it were a problem, it could be fixed --- must always fail with these people. To acknowledge your point means to acknowledge a failure in your faith.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Pink Floyd - Comfortably numb
What's it about? Being stoned? But the feeling is what I'm talking about. Comfortably numb. Or just not giving a damn. A word "lassitude"--- weariness, but not in pain.
Obligatory, 9/2/15
What to write about today? You know what? I don't know. I'm out of words, ya'll. Don't know what to say.
Well, there was something about checking out the book Four Witnesses a couple days ago. It is on my Kindle, but I misplaced it. Found it last night, but it needed a charge. Charged it overnight, so it can be checked out today, provided I have the time. The answer to the question I posed is probably there in that book, but I have to be sure.
Other than that, what to write about? This business about Trump seems strange. Is Trump really the answer, or we being manipulated again? Hey, everybody, jump onboard the Trump train. So, everybody dutifully jumps onboard the Trump train. Really, are you people really that mindless?
Yeah, I saw that the stock market seems to be rolling over again. Wait until after Labor Day. I heard one time somebody mentioned that all the pros come back from vacation then. In 2000, that's when the big selloff began for that bear market. It happened again in 2008. This time of the year is about the time you get your big selloffs. In 1987, there was a big crash. Will people jump from high places this time?
Oh, and Obama is going to get enough Senators to go along with his Iran deal. It was written up as a "victory" in the Washington Post. A victory over who? Why, the GOP of course. The GOP loves to be the whipping boy. The left obliges with glee. Ain't it wonderful? /sarc
I'd really like to go out West on Labor day, but it is just too dumb.
Well, that's all for now.
Update:
Read parts of the book and also watched a video by the author. Quite interesting.
The early Christians learned not by the book, but by the method of discipleship.
Well, there was something about checking out the book Four Witnesses a couple days ago. It is on my Kindle, but I misplaced it. Found it last night, but it needed a charge. Charged it overnight, so it can be checked out today, provided I have the time. The answer to the question I posed is probably there in that book, but I have to be sure.
Other than that, what to write about? This business about Trump seems strange. Is Trump really the answer, or we being manipulated again? Hey, everybody, jump onboard the Trump train. So, everybody dutifully jumps onboard the Trump train. Really, are you people really that mindless?
Yeah, I saw that the stock market seems to be rolling over again. Wait until after Labor Day. I heard one time somebody mentioned that all the pros come back from vacation then. In 2000, that's when the big selloff began for that bear market. It happened again in 2008. This time of the year is about the time you get your big selloffs. In 1987, there was a big crash. Will people jump from high places this time?
Oh, and Obama is going to get enough Senators to go along with his Iran deal. It was written up as a "victory" in the Washington Post. A victory over who? Why, the GOP of course. The GOP loves to be the whipping boy. The left obliges with glee. Ain't it wonderful? /sarc
I'd really like to go out West on Labor day, but it is just too dumb.
Well, that's all for now.
Update:
Read parts of the book and also watched a video by the author. Quite interesting.
The early Christians learned not by the book, but by the method of discipleship.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Idea for a emissions free car
The equipment needed for one of these already exists
Would it eliminate all carbon emissions? No, not without some additional hardware, but that exists too.
Why isn't it done? That's what you call the 64k dollar question, kemosabe.
- The vehicle's power plant would run on ammonia. Ammonia has no carbon. The ammonia would be in aqueous solution to make it safer to handle. Nothing new here.
- This would require a "de-watering" device to be installed on the car. Such things exist.
- The power plant could be a high efficiency Stirling Engine, which would eliminate any nitrogen emissions. Since the Stirling Engine is more efficient than an internal combustion engine, it would take less fuel. Nothing new here either.
- It would be paired with a battery electric system, and Stirling Engine would provide range extension. Nothing new in any of this.
Would it eliminate all carbon emissions? No, not without some additional hardware, but that exists too.
Why isn't it done? That's what you call the 64k dollar question, kemosabe.
Obligatory, 9/1/15
Posting has been rather light. My apologies. There's no explanation other than I haven't got anything to say.
There's kind of an empty feeling right now. I got an antenna for my TV so that I could watch football games. It's the only thing that I find interesting enough to watch anymore. Even there, I watched about half of the game Sunday, but then I got bored and went on to doing something else. I turned the TV on yesterday and couldn't find anything interesting enough for me to want to watch. It's all cotton candy empty headed junk.
Something just struck me now, but given how little interest there is, I wonder if anybody will see it, or that it will matter anyway. The thought is that the world is full of crap. The whole world is just totally full of crap. Everything is a lie. If you try to live a truthful life, you will walk a lonely way. The world is false. If you try to bring truth to a situation, you will be ignored or even hated for it.
People need to believe things, though. This is the great weakness that allows lies to creep in. Doesn't that seem like a contradiction? But no, it isn't. Even though people need to believe things, they really don't check things out thoroughly. If what sounds good is compelling enough, they'll believe it, even though there isn't ample proof for them to believe it or not. Besides, truth isn't belief, nor belief is synonymous with truth. You can believe something with all your heart, and it can still be false as hell. What you believe is internalized into your ego, and becomes a part of you, but that doesn't necessarily make a thing true. The truth exists outside of what you believe.
With respect to Christianity, it seemed like I was on a path towards believing in it. Now, I just don't know. The Gospels' authorship cannot be pinned down. Something about that struck me as strange. If you cannot pin down who wrote the Gospels, then how do you know what is the truth? Something as important as this cannot be vouchsafed as being accurate? That seems strange that you are called upon to believe in something that cannot be proven in any way. The identity of the witnesses can't be pinned down. That was the track I was on, that Christianity can be verified through its witnesses, but that seems to have all gone to smash.
So, you are left with another thing to believe or not believe. If you don't believe it, you are considered to be bad by those who do believe. It is really no different than believing in AGW. People could be making this stuff up and then getting people to believe it.
I feel pretty much that evil exists. If there's anything that is evil, it is something that is false. Especially something false that people say in order to fool other people into believing it to be true.
Update:
With respect to Christianity, it may be a good idea to go back and re-read the book about the Early Church.
There's kind of an empty feeling right now. I got an antenna for my TV so that I could watch football games. It's the only thing that I find interesting enough to watch anymore. Even there, I watched about half of the game Sunday, but then I got bored and went on to doing something else. I turned the TV on yesterday and couldn't find anything interesting enough for me to want to watch. It's all cotton candy empty headed junk.
Something just struck me now, but given how little interest there is, I wonder if anybody will see it, or that it will matter anyway. The thought is that the world is full of crap. The whole world is just totally full of crap. Everything is a lie. If you try to live a truthful life, you will walk a lonely way. The world is false. If you try to bring truth to a situation, you will be ignored or even hated for it.
People need to believe things, though. This is the great weakness that allows lies to creep in. Doesn't that seem like a contradiction? But no, it isn't. Even though people need to believe things, they really don't check things out thoroughly. If what sounds good is compelling enough, they'll believe it, even though there isn't ample proof for them to believe it or not. Besides, truth isn't belief, nor belief is synonymous with truth. You can believe something with all your heart, and it can still be false as hell. What you believe is internalized into your ego, and becomes a part of you, but that doesn't necessarily make a thing true. The truth exists outside of what you believe.
With respect to Christianity, it seemed like I was on a path towards believing in it. Now, I just don't know. The Gospels' authorship cannot be pinned down. Something about that struck me as strange. If you cannot pin down who wrote the Gospels, then how do you know what is the truth? Something as important as this cannot be vouchsafed as being accurate? That seems strange that you are called upon to believe in something that cannot be proven in any way. The identity of the witnesses can't be pinned down. That was the track I was on, that Christianity can be verified through its witnesses, but that seems to have all gone to smash.
So, you are left with another thing to believe or not believe. If you don't believe it, you are considered to be bad by those who do believe. It is really no different than believing in AGW. People could be making this stuff up and then getting people to believe it.
I feel pretty much that evil exists. If there's anything that is evil, it is something that is false. Especially something false that people say in order to fool other people into believing it to be true.
Update:
With respect to Christianity, it may be a good idea to go back and re-read the book about the Early Church.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Brave New World discussion
As I wrote before, I have become rather fascinated by the Brave New World story. I spent time on it yesterday, and a little more time on it this morning.
Every society must have a moral system, for man is a moral being. Even the World State of the Brave New World has its own brand of morality. What happens to those who deviate? They are banished or executed.
John Savage, a major character in the story, was executed as was his mother, Linda. Both were too deviant to be acceptable to the World State's norms.
If every society must have a moral system, then what is ours?
Every society must have a moral system, for man is a moral being. Even the World State of the Brave New World has its own brand of morality. What happens to those who deviate? They are banished or executed.
John Savage, a major character in the story, was executed as was his mother, Linda. Both were too deviant to be acceptable to the World State's norms.
If every society must have a moral system, then what is ours?
The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West Home - Question: What is 'PC'?
The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West Home - Question: What is 'PC'?
Answer: The Marxist mechanism that disconnects facts from conclusions to make war on our minds.I'd like to call it a "war on truth". Here's another good quote from the article:
If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable— what then?Diana West has a book called "American Betrayal". So, what about that book? It gets high marks. Don't think I'll order it, though. Anybody who thinks for himself can overcome PC. The moral is don't let other people do your thinking for you. But that's what everybody does---let someone else do your thinking for you.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Planning for the move out west
This is a consideration of the method of living that I'll use out west. The problem to solve is not having enough money, and having to go into the city in order to make enough money to live on. This entails the use of two vehicles, which complicates matters considerably.
In any event, it would be hard to live out of the van. No standing up in it. It could be modified, but not for standing up. In fact, the modifications have been planned already.
It's not likely that the ranch could ever be self sufficient enough for me to spend almost all of my time there.
There is also the problem that Uber may not generate enough cash to make it worthwhile as an income source. I may need to do a "dry run" in order to see what I can make out there before I leap. Looks like a plan, if I use option 2.
This goes into the general subseries section of the off-the-grid posts.
Prev Next
- If I live in El Paso, I could stay a week there, and then a week at the ranch. That would split the costs of renting out an RV space. But I'd have to rent a space for the car when I'm not driving, and at the ranch.
-
Another option is to move out there into an apartment ( google apartments in el paso ). I'd work for Uber to make a living just like I would do in Houston if I depended upon Uber to pay the bills. I could go out to the ranch on weekends, if I chose.
-
If I live in Van Horn, I could go less frequently into El Paso, and just drive there in the car. It would be hard to make it for more than 2 days at a time without using a motel room. I'd still need a parking spot for the car when I'm not driving it.
In any event, it would be hard to live out of the van. No standing up in it. It could be modified, but not for standing up. In fact, the modifications have been planned already.
It's not likely that the ranch could ever be self sufficient enough for me to spend almost all of my time there.
There is also the problem that Uber may not generate enough cash to make it worthwhile as an income source. I may need to do a "dry run" in order to see what I can make out there before I leap. Looks like a plan, if I use option 2.
This goes into the general subseries section of the off-the-grid posts.
Prev Next
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)