Next Big Future: Lunar Space Elevator Kickstarter is over $16,000 a...: Lunar Space Elevator Kickstarter is over double its $8000 goal. The Lunar space elevator kickstarter is over $16,000 and still increasing. ...
This appears to be promising a lot. Maybe too much. The lunar part may be feasible, but you have to stay with the concept awhile until you get to that point. This project is starting out with some climber technology, and they apparently believe they can make this work on the moon.
I've looked into moonstalks before. The video below is not exactly what I had in mind, but it could be what was written about in the link shown in the previous sentence. The video doesn't mention what materials would be used for the climbing "ribbon". Nor the masses required and so forth. I suspect that this method may be oversimplified, but here it is all the same:
Update:
I may have jumped to conclusions. They aren't promising that much. It looks reasonable after reading a bit more of it, but perhaps it is packaged a little too aggressively. They will eventually need a lot of money to do this project, but according to the site, this is not their goal right now. Okay, if that sounds confusing, you'll just have to read it yourself.
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.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
What is Iran doing?
That is, what is Iran doing with their pursuit of nuclear energy? This presents Israel with a problem of what to do about it.
Based upon recent statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one may get the impression that Iran wants Israel to go away. One means toward that end would be a nuclear strike upon the Jewish state. Hence the development of nuclear energy, which could be a way towards making nuclear weapons of war:
Iran has denied this, but are their denials credible, given their warlike proclamations? How to assess their intentions? From all appearances, their intentions are indeed warlike, and that leaves Israel with a serious problem.
Could the Iranians follow a different path that would show good intentions? There could be another way forward with their nuclear program. One that could lessen the risk of proliferation and weapons development. This way could be towards a LFTR type reactor design. These reactors do not use uranium directly, and it is not feasible nor practical to make bombs with them. The design is not technically too difficult. The technology was developed in the USA over 40 years ago.
In any case, the development of a reactor design which would allow the recovery of plutonium which could be used for bombs is the issue. Perhaps there are reactor designs which would make this difficult, if not impossible, but that has yet to be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated, it would leave Israel no choice but to attack-- or take the risk of a nuclear Iran. It is up to Iran to show their peaceful intentions, but that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment. If Iran is being misunderstood, whose responsibility is it to change this? If you want to be understood as peaceful, you should conduct yourself that way.
So, what is Iran up to? Are they forcing Israel to attack? To bring about what result?
Let's say that Israel attacks. Let's also say that they are successful in knocking out their nuclear facilities. What comes next? Iran would probably want to retaliate, but how would this retaliation take place and in what manner? A tit-for-tat retaliation may mean a missile attack upon Israel. But that is not likely to be successful. Israel is too well-defended for that. Iran must know that-- so why the provocation? Is it to unite the Islamic world against Israel, so as to eliminate the Jewish state with a united military effort? Iran may want to do an invasion, but they would have to go through some other countries before they could get to Israel. This means a much wider war than just an missile exchange- tit-for-tat. That seems unlikely. Without a united effort, a move against Israel doesn't seem likely to be successful, so why provoke an attack for such limited purposes?
This leaves out a discussion of how Israel may take out the Iranian installations. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that a way exists for Israel to do that and do it without the use of naval or land forces. Then Iran's only response isn't likely to be successful unless it can lead to a broader effort to wipe out Israel on the ground. An Israeli attack may unite the Islamic World, but to what end? To what extent is that unity going to be useful for any purpose-- the Islamic World is already divided. How would they unite behind Iran? Are they willing to go to war with Iran as an ally?
It would seem to be a game of chicken, which is silly. It seems much too silly to be taken seriously, yet this is what could be happening. The Iranians may be deluding themselves into thinking that Israel doesn't have the will to do anything-- or the ability. They also may be deluding themselves into thinking that the world will unite with them in wiping out Israel. They may be provoking an attack that will only demonstrate their impotence in stopping it and their impotence in retaliating against the effects of it. They may be provoking an attack which only demonstrates that they can make Israel defend themselves with a preemptive attack, while deluding themselves into believing that Israel can't nor won't be able to do this effectively. Israel may behave in a manner consistent with a local saying that it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six. Or to put it another way, it is better to be judged alive than admired dead.
Iran may be provoking a war in which they have little to gain. Also a war in which their adversary has everything to lose if they don't act. To what end? It makes little sense unless the whole exercise is to make Israel look bad on the world stage. But if the matter is about Israel's survival, why should the Israelis care about that? How does that help Iran?
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense. Unless it is a big game of chicken. If that is the case, the Iranian regime needs to grow up.
Based upon recent statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one may get the impression that Iran wants Israel to go away. One means toward that end would be a nuclear strike upon the Jewish state. Hence the development of nuclear energy, which could be a way towards making nuclear weapons of war:
...was embroiled in controversy regarding statements he made supporting Holocaust denial and for commenting that "the occupying regime" would, according to various translations, be eliminated, or "vanish from the pages of time." The New York Times reported this as a call for the destruction of the State of Israel when the phrase was translated as "wiped off the map" by Ahmadinejad's official website and Iranian state run media.[source: Wikipedia]
Iran has denied this, but are their denials credible, given their warlike proclamations? How to assess their intentions? From all appearances, their intentions are indeed warlike, and that leaves Israel with a serious problem.
Could the Iranians follow a different path that would show good intentions? There could be another way forward with their nuclear program. One that could lessen the risk of proliferation and weapons development. This way could be towards a LFTR type reactor design. These reactors do not use uranium directly, and it is not feasible nor practical to make bombs with them. The design is not technically too difficult. The technology was developed in the USA over 40 years ago.
In any case, the development of a reactor design which would allow the recovery of plutonium which could be used for bombs is the issue. Perhaps there are reactor designs which would make this difficult, if not impossible, but that has yet to be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated, it would leave Israel no choice but to attack-- or take the risk of a nuclear Iran. It is up to Iran to show their peaceful intentions, but that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment. If Iran is being misunderstood, whose responsibility is it to change this? If you want to be understood as peaceful, you should conduct yourself that way.
So, what is Iran up to? Are they forcing Israel to attack? To bring about what result?
Let's say that Israel attacks. Let's also say that they are successful in knocking out their nuclear facilities. What comes next? Iran would probably want to retaliate, but how would this retaliation take place and in what manner? A tit-for-tat retaliation may mean a missile attack upon Israel. But that is not likely to be successful. Israel is too well-defended for that. Iran must know that-- so why the provocation? Is it to unite the Islamic world against Israel, so as to eliminate the Jewish state with a united military effort? Iran may want to do an invasion, but they would have to go through some other countries before they could get to Israel. This means a much wider war than just an missile exchange- tit-for-tat. That seems unlikely. Without a united effort, a move against Israel doesn't seem likely to be successful, so why provoke an attack for such limited purposes?
This leaves out a discussion of how Israel may take out the Iranian installations. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that a way exists for Israel to do that and do it without the use of naval or land forces. Then Iran's only response isn't likely to be successful unless it can lead to a broader effort to wipe out Israel on the ground. An Israeli attack may unite the Islamic World, but to what end? To what extent is that unity going to be useful for any purpose-- the Islamic World is already divided. How would they unite behind Iran? Are they willing to go to war with Iran as an ally?
It would seem to be a game of chicken, which is silly. It seems much too silly to be taken seriously, yet this is what could be happening. The Iranians may be deluding themselves into thinking that Israel doesn't have the will to do anything-- or the ability. They also may be deluding themselves into thinking that the world will unite with them in wiping out Israel. They may be provoking an attack that will only demonstrate their impotence in stopping it and their impotence in retaliating against the effects of it. They may be provoking an attack which only demonstrates that they can make Israel defend themselves with a preemptive attack, while deluding themselves into believing that Israel can't nor won't be able to do this effectively. Israel may behave in a manner consistent with a local saying that it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six. Or to put it another way, it is better to be judged alive than admired dead.
Iran may be provoking a war in which they have little to gain. Also a war in which their adversary has everything to lose if they don't act. To what end? It makes little sense unless the whole exercise is to make Israel look bad on the world stage. But if the matter is about Israel's survival, why should the Israelis care about that? How does that help Iran?
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense. Unless it is a big game of chicken. If that is the case, the Iranian regime needs to grow up.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Review (Part 1 of 3)
Uploaded by favorites411 on Apr 24, 2011
Entertaining review, but beware the language. Lots of bad language, but I don't mind.
The narrator sounds drunk, though. Given the movie, and what he's reviewing, maybe he has a good excuse.
Part 2
Part 3
Entertaining review, but beware the language. Lots of bad language, but I don't mind.
The narrator sounds drunk, though. Given the movie, and what he's reviewing, maybe he has a good excuse.
Part 2
Part 3
What is the Tea Party?
There is so much said about this that it would seem that the answer would be obvious. The Samuel Jackson claim that the Tea Party is racist is a starting point, I suppose, into that aspect of the movement. It appears that Jackson's claim is mostly about opposition to Obama. Somehow, race has been thrust into the discussion, but a reading of a this Tea Party document reveals nothing about race. The Tea Party Patriots endorsed that document, but the Democrats refused to sign it. Not all Republicans endorsed the document either, but endorsed the Pledge for America instead. Thus, the Tea Party is not what you would call a unanimous movement of either one of the parties, but the Tea Party does tend to follow conservative principles.
Who's in the Tea Party?
Ron Paul ran for President, his son Rand is in the Senate. Sarah Palin was the Vice Presidential nominee in 2008. Dick Armey was a former congressman from Texas. Michelle Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota who ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Yet none of these people clearly define what the Tea Party actually is, in terms of its leadership and principles, as far as I can determine.
If the principles are dedicated to the US Constitution, then the document mentioned above, The Contract From America, adheres to this fairly closely, in my opinion. But this is not what you'd call a founding document, nor a party platform to run on in an election. It doesn't have universal support for that, although the Republican Party tends to follow it loosely, but there's plenty of opposition to it.
Here's a list of Tea Party politicians. Some of these names are questionable, in my opinion. In the recent run off election, Ted Cruz v. David Dewhurst, this list shows both as being Tea Partiers. But the Dewhurst claim is not believable.
As best as I can tell, the Tea Party is not well defined, neither in terms of its leadership, nor its organization, nor its principles. It is a loose amalgamation of various personalities with generally small government ideas. It not organized according to race, nor racial doctrines. There is no clear leader amongst the group. If anything unites it, it may well be the strong opposition to President Obama, and his signature legislative achievement, known colloquially as ObamaCare.
Update:
A significant omission was a discussion about foreign policy.
My own impression would be that they should follow the principles of Ronald Reagan in terms of committing US forces overseas. Reagan tended to avoid large commitments and entanglements. His general approach was peace through strength. The Tea Party should avoid Bush-like neo-Conservative policies which have cost the nation dearly and divided the nation bitterly.
The Tea Party positions on these issues are not well-defined as they are on domestic issues.
Walter Russell Mead has an article discussing the Tea Party on this subject. But you have to be a subscriber to read all of it, and I'm not. The first part is published, though, and it is too general to offer an opinion.
Who's in the Tea Party?
The Tea Party movement's membership includes notable Republican politicians Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, and Michele Bachmann. Joshua Green has said the elder Paul is not the Tea Party's founder, or its culturally resonant figure, but has become the "intellectual godfather" of the movement as many now agree with his long-held beliefs. In July 2010, Michele Bachmann formed the Tea Party Congressional Caucus, which now contains 66 members .
Ron Paul ran for President, his son Rand is in the Senate. Sarah Palin was the Vice Presidential nominee in 2008. Dick Armey was a former congressman from Texas. Michelle Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota who ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Yet none of these people clearly define what the Tea Party actually is, in terms of its leadership and principles, as far as I can determine.
If the principles are dedicated to the US Constitution, then the document mentioned above, The Contract From America, adheres to this fairly closely, in my opinion. But this is not what you'd call a founding document, nor a party platform to run on in an election. It doesn't have universal support for that, although the Republican Party tends to follow it loosely, but there's plenty of opposition to it.
Here's a list of Tea Party politicians. Some of these names are questionable, in my opinion. In the recent run off election, Ted Cruz v. David Dewhurst, this list shows both as being Tea Partiers. But the Dewhurst claim is not believable.
As best as I can tell, the Tea Party is not well defined, neither in terms of its leadership, nor its organization, nor its principles. It is a loose amalgamation of various personalities with generally small government ideas. It not organized according to race, nor racial doctrines. There is no clear leader amongst the group. If anything unites it, it may well be the strong opposition to President Obama, and his signature legislative achievement, known colloquially as ObamaCare.
Update:
A significant omission was a discussion about foreign policy.
My own impression would be that they should follow the principles of Ronald Reagan in terms of committing US forces overseas. Reagan tended to avoid large commitments and entanglements. His general approach was peace through strength. The Tea Party should avoid Bush-like neo-Conservative policies which have cost the nation dearly and divided the nation bitterly.
The Tea Party positions on these issues are not well-defined as they are on domestic issues.
Walter Russell Mead has an article discussing the Tea Party on this subject. But you have to be a subscriber to read all of it, and I'm not. The first part is published, though, and it is too general to offer an opinion.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Most Daring - ser.7 ep.7
Uploaded by 3bepko on Aug 29, 2011
MOST DARING is the ultimate adrenaline rush show, featuring the most heat-stopping, teeth grinding, gut busting moments ever caught on tape. Whether it's death defying clips, outrageous behavior or spell binding stories tune in to see how ordinary people tackle extraordinary situations.
MOST DARING is the ultimate adrenaline rush show, featuring the most heat-stopping, teeth grinding, gut busting moments ever caught on tape. Whether it's death defying clips, outrageous behavior or spell binding stories tune in to see how ordinary people tackle extraordinary situations.
Scientists find liberal gene
free republic
As I've come to expect, a liberal commenter says liberals are smarter than conservatives. Is there a way to gauge this empirically? Perhaps one way would be to observe how well each does in political campaigns.
Republicans have won 5 out the last 8 Presidential elections. So much for liberal superiority complexes.
For one particular example, consider Ronald Reagan. I would put forth the idea that most Republicans and Democrats for that matter, do not understand why Reagan was as successful as he was. I was old enough to vote for or against him, and voted against. It was very easy to underestimate Reagan. Intelligence is a subtle thing, not so obvious to discern. The conventional wisdom at the time was Reagan was an "amiable dunce". But not so. Reagan was very wise not to call himself "right wing". There is a strong bias against "right wing" politics, so any politicians that aligns himself in such a way has beaten himself before he even starts. Reagan didn't do that. Another problem amongst the conservatives is the tendency to divide themselves. Reagan had a rule-- thou shalt not criticize other Republicans in public. Another example of his wisdom--which is something that the Republicans need to remember. A third thing to remember is that even though Republicans favor military strength, they are all-too-often, all-too-willing to use it. Reagan was very judicious in how he used the military. The two Bush presidencies were not so judicious, and wound up dividing themselves and the country in so doing.
It is a fine line in appearing weak and coming on too strong. Clinton was able to walk that line. Maybe not so much with Obama, but the jury is still out. Bush, on the other hand, came on too strong. Reagan was like the Goldilocks and Three Bears, just right.
It is not so useful, I think, to look only at the ideologies. You need to look at the person. Reagan was better than the two Bushes, Clinton was also better, but probably not as good as Reagan. Obama may be more like Carter, who was the least of them all, in my opinion. Ideologies didn't have that much to do with any of it. It mattered more in how they conducted themselves while in office. Clinton would have done much better if he was more truthful and kept his zipper up. Reagan was getting a little old, but his judgment as still superior to Bush or Clinton. Obama may appear strong in foreign policy, but that may be an illusion. Trouble signs are mounting. He is failing badly in economics--- foreign policy requires strength, and a weak economy makes a weak hand.
Romney seeks to unseat Obama. One advantage Romney brings to the table is a record of competence. It doesn't help Obama when he doesn't appear to have a grasp of the problems that face the nation. In a mano y mano matchup, it will become apparent who will be the better master. I'd bet on the guy who has a record of success versus a guy who doesn't. The ideology won't matter for people who are looking for leadership and signs of competence and strength. Obama doesn't project that at the moment--- Romney has an edge.
As I've come to expect, a liberal commenter says liberals are smarter than conservatives. Is there a way to gauge this empirically? Perhaps one way would be to observe how well each does in political campaigns.
Republicans have won 5 out the last 8 Presidential elections. So much for liberal superiority complexes.
For one particular example, consider Ronald Reagan. I would put forth the idea that most Republicans and Democrats for that matter, do not understand why Reagan was as successful as he was. I was old enough to vote for or against him, and voted against. It was very easy to underestimate Reagan. Intelligence is a subtle thing, not so obvious to discern. The conventional wisdom at the time was Reagan was an "amiable dunce". But not so. Reagan was very wise not to call himself "right wing". There is a strong bias against "right wing" politics, so any politicians that aligns himself in such a way has beaten himself before he even starts. Reagan didn't do that. Another problem amongst the conservatives is the tendency to divide themselves. Reagan had a rule-- thou shalt not criticize other Republicans in public. Another example of his wisdom--which is something that the Republicans need to remember. A third thing to remember is that even though Republicans favor military strength, they are all-too-often, all-too-willing to use it. Reagan was very judicious in how he used the military. The two Bush presidencies were not so judicious, and wound up dividing themselves and the country in so doing.
It is a fine line in appearing weak and coming on too strong. Clinton was able to walk that line. Maybe not so much with Obama, but the jury is still out. Bush, on the other hand, came on too strong. Reagan was like the Goldilocks and Three Bears, just right.
It is not so useful, I think, to look only at the ideologies. You need to look at the person. Reagan was better than the two Bushes, Clinton was also better, but probably not as good as Reagan. Obama may be more like Carter, who was the least of them all, in my opinion. Ideologies didn't have that much to do with any of it. It mattered more in how they conducted themselves while in office. Clinton would have done much better if he was more truthful and kept his zipper up. Reagan was getting a little old, but his judgment as still superior to Bush or Clinton. Obama may appear strong in foreign policy, but that may be an illusion. Trouble signs are mounting. He is failing badly in economics--- foreign policy requires strength, and a weak economy makes a weak hand.
Romney seeks to unseat Obama. One advantage Romney brings to the table is a record of competence. It doesn't help Obama when he doesn't appear to have a grasp of the problems that face the nation. In a mano y mano matchup, it will become apparent who will be the better master. I'd bet on the guy who has a record of success versus a guy who doesn't. The ideology won't matter for people who are looking for leadership and signs of competence and strength. Obama doesn't project that at the moment--- Romney has an edge.
THORIUM Molten-Salt Reactor [LFTR] - The Future of Energy
Update #23 · Aug. 23, 2012
Kim Johnson - Last TEAC4 Lecture
Kim discusses how to use this type of chemistry to improve various valuable mining processes in order to produce hydrogen from oil sands, amongst other things.
He calls it molten salt science-- or Ms Sci
Kim Johnson - Last TEAC4 Lecture
Kim discusses how to use this type of chemistry to improve various valuable mining processes in order to produce hydrogen from oil sands, amongst other things.
He calls it molten salt science-- or Ms Sci
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)