Why Worship Cthulhu?
From... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu Cthulhu's Wager measures the benefits/punishments of belief/non-belief in Cthulhu. It follows logic thusly: Cthulhu, if he exists, exists somewhere inaccessible to human beings, so we cannot be certain of his existence or nonexistence. If Cthulhu exists, he will give a quick and less painful death to those who have worshipped him and expressed their belief through self-flagellation and ritual sacrifice. If Cthulhu exists, he will condemn those who have not worshipped him to eternal torture and unimaginable pain. You may worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu exists, in which case you suffer only finite pain and a quick death. You may worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing. You may not worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing. You may not worship Cthulhu, and Cthulhu exists, in which case you suffer infinite pain and eternal torture. The following table shows the values assigned to each possible outcome: Cthulhu exists Cthulhu does not exist Worship of Cthulhu + #8734; (finite pain) 0 Non-Worship of Cthulhu #8722; #8734; (infinite pain) 0 Now you must wager: do you choose to worship him or not? So we can describe our calculus of pain, holding as the probability that Cthulhu exists, and that he does not exist. If you worship him, we assign as the pain if he does exist, and as the pain if he does not exist. is less than because in both instances you go through the pain associated with worshipping Cthulhu, but in , you also get eaten, which is more painful. If you worship him your expected pain is some finite constant: [ommitted - see the article] For the case where you do not worship him, we assign as the pain if he does exist, and as the pain if he does not exist. will be zero or negative, because you actually get pleasure if you don't worship him and he does not exist. If you do not worship him, your expected pain is: [ommitted - see the article] However, Y1, the pain if he does exist and you don't worship him, is infinite. Therefore, expected pain is infinite if you do not worship him, no matter what the associated probability . As infinite pain is always greater than any finite pain, is always greater than . Therefore, in order to minimize your pain, the only rational thing for you to do is to pick , and worship Cthulhu through self-flagellation and ritual sacrifice. However, be very wary when applying this. Cthulhu doesn't like a smart alek. And he tends to eat people he doesn't like... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oy.
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Victoria's Secret is selling Uplift Jeans. Why should boobs and dolphins be the only things that benefit from technology? I didn't know my butt needed it as badly as my boobs do. :) My wife said something fairly similar about what parts could use a boost versus others. :) Jim A much higher percentage of butt is muscle, compared to boobs. Muscle doesn't droop as badly as other sorts of tissue (not counting bone, of course). And after 2 or 3 pregnancies, boobs will *definitely* have some droop to them. Butts can be improved by working out a lot more easily. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fwd: Someone Must Tell Them
Deborah Harrell wrote: I just finished _Three Cups Of Tea_, about Greg Mortensen and his initially-one-man-but-became-many-more war on ignorance in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by building schools for girls and boys, and expanding into programs for starting up small businesses for adults. Talk about what Americans are made of and the spirit of the people... The man probably qualifies for a DSMIV diagnosis, but his results are impressive, and underline the concept that those who have something to live for are far less susceptible to being schnookered by jihadist con-artists. What sort of DSM-IV diagnosis? That's awfully vague Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pencimen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab... William wrote: Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288). Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there is very little down side to cleaning up our act. If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it. It would be worthwhile to see a single site that had a serious analysis of the costs of converting from fossil fuels to a PC form of energy (i.e. nuclear is not PC) which comes up with the cost of stopping global warming at 10 trillion dollars. I've Googled and have not obtained anything close to serious analysis. Let's just look at the US. In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% above the Kyoto quota for the US. Now, it's safe to say it's 25% above. So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2 production 20%. The sources and uses of power are available on the net. I've looked at them. So, my question is...given what's available, how can the US cut it's use of fossil fuel by 20% while still experiencing economic and population growth over the next 10 years? I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining and publishing the best understandings of the community. The numbers I quote do not include mights or coulds. They determined the probable range from the best available data, models, etc. I do not give nearly as much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's strong hurricanes are the result of global warming. There is no consensus on that. I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured. Now, I'm not saying that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not show it at the present time. I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore. I see Bush-league scientific and economic understanding. Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced here before) for being able to do it is: when we need to do something, it can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project. So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
At 08:51 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pencimen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:53 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab... William wrote: Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288). Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there is very little down side to cleaning up our act. If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. A recession? Or would it take a depression, or a catastrophic meltdown of the whole world economy? The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it. It would be worthwhile to see a single site that had a serious analysis of the costs of converting from fossil fuels to a PC form of energy (i.e. nuclear is not PC) which comes up with the cost of stopping global warming at 10 trillion dollars. I've Googled and have not obtained anything close to serious analysis. Let's just look at the US. In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% above the Kyoto quota for the US. Now, it's safe to say it's 25% above. So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2 production 20%. The sources and uses of power are available on the net. I've looked at them. So, my question is...given what's available, how can the US cut it's use of fossil fuel by 20% while still experiencing economic and population growth over the next 10 years? And what about the rest of the world, which wants what the US has: IOW, the same standard of living, and all the stuff . . . ? I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining and publishing the best understandings of the community. The numbers I quote do not include mights or coulds. They determined the probable range from the best available data, models, etc. I do not give nearly as much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's strong hurricanes are the result of global warming. There is no consensus on that. I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured. Now, I'm not saying that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not show it at the present time. I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore. I see Bush-league scientific and economic understanding. Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced here before) for being able to do it is: when we need to do something, it can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project. So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, Sometimes a vacuum [cleaner] blows hot air, and sometimes it just sucks. Sounds exactly like a politician to me . . . (And the problem with finding a solution to global warming is that it far more a political issue than it is anything else . . . and I mean political in the worst way: iow, it doesn't matter whether or not the problem gets solved as long as my party comes out on top and your party gets not only defeated but humiliated, preferably destroyed . . . ) then it should be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto. Dan M. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Charlie Bell wrote: On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the dangers of terrorists, and talk so little about what Americans are made of. Someone needs to talk to Americans about finding their own bravery, and about getting on with life without being constantly frightened by every little thing. What allowed us in England to hang on during the war was not our military force, but the spirit of the people. Americans have this same spirit, but no one talks about it. That's a shame, because it is the best protection we've got. Someone must tell them. This is something I and others were saying in late 2001/early 2002. The panic from the world's most powerful people was baffling. It was like watching a giant weightlifter get bitten by a tiny ant and acting as if a shark had taken his leg. Yes, it was a spectacular and horrific attack with a terrible loss of life. But it was the indignity of the response that disappointed. Having had an allergy to fire ants at one point, I could have a little bit of sympathy for someone in that position. :) (The weightlifter, I mean, not the powerful people.) But a *brief* panic would take care of the problem as well as Benadryl after awhile. (By brief I mean 10-15 min. Then it was time to go back to dealing with things in a reasonable manner.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Perhaps we should stop calling that group Al Qaeda and start calling them Al Kato. (After Clousseau's sparring partnerG) I see that and think O.J. Simpson's guest. :P Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, was assumed bod and soul into heavenly glory. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone ever referring to the bod of Mary. For all we know, it was even a bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... Bodacious??? Bodacious??? My God man! She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! xponent Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru rob No, I wasn't. She only had 1 baby, after all. And maybe she had the sort of genes that protect you from stretch marks. :D (I sure don't. And I had twins. Past 38 weeks. My belly was pretty scary there for quite awhile.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote: I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining and publishing the best understandings of the community. The numbers I quote do not include mights or coulds. They determined the probable range from the best available data, models, etc. I do not give nearly as much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's strong hurricanes are the result of global warming. There is no consensus on that. I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured. Now, I'm not saying that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not show it at the present time. The problem with a 'wait and see' approach to the problem is that if the more extreme scenarios *do* turn out to be correct then it will already be too late to do anything to significantly ameliorate the situation. 'Wait and see' is not a neutral position, it is gambling that the milder scenarios prove to be correct. I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore. I see Bush-league scientific and economic understanding. Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced here before) for being able to do it is: when we need to do something, it can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project. So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto. Cheaper and easier than dealing with storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of refugees. If it comes to that Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Economics of global warming, was: Re: 9/11 conspiracies ...
Dan Minette wrote: ... Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there is very little down side to cleaning up our act. If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it. Dan-- I would argue that it takes a few years for people to adjust to higher fuel prices. So in the short term they put up with the increase and pay more, although it does affect their long term decisions. For example, take automobile purchases. My family has three cars, one of which gets around 17 miles per gallon (no metric conversion, tough). The plan is to keep driving it for the short term, but you can be sure the next car we buy will get much better mileage. So you get no short term reduction in fuel usage, but definitely a long term one. Similar arguments can be made for energy used for heating, etc. It takes time to insulate and modify buildings, but if it's economically favored, it will eventually happen. It would be worthwhile to see a single site that had a serious analysis of the costs of converting from fossil fuels to a PC form of energy (i.e. nuclear is not PC) which comes up with the cost of stopping global warming at 10 trillion dollars. I've Googled and have not obtained anything close to serious analysis. I'd like to look at some analyses too. I believe that an analysis that does not factor in a large increase in energy conservation is simplistic. But it's not at all clear what should be counted as a cost of energy conservation. Greatly reducing energy use would change the economy significantly. Some sectors would lose, but others would gain. People would change their behavior as well. What is the long term cost of driving less, and in a smaller car? So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto. Dan M. I've partially dealt with cheap. It certainly would not be easy, as many aspects of people's lives would change. On the other hand, they'll change anyway. Going back to the vacuuming analogy, the problem is that the vacuum is under a pile of stuff in the closet. It will take awhile to dig it out, and by then we might discover that sweeping would actually work better. ---David Let the price climb, and see what the market does. Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Why Worship Cthulhu?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: From... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu Cthulhu's Wager measures the benefits/punishments of belief/non-belief in Cthulhu. It follows logic thusly: Cthulhu, if he exists, exists somewhere inaccessible to human beings, so we cannot be certain of his existence or nonexistence. If Cthulhu exists, he will give a quick and less painful death to those who have worshipped him and expressed their belief through self-flagellation and ritual sacrifice. Um, yeah? Really? I'm thinking otherwise, having seen http://callsforcthulhu.blogspot.com/2006/09/calls-for-cthulhu-episode-1.html Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Amusing photo
First photo on http://www.conjecturer.com/weblog/?p=3045 will amuse some folks here. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 29/09/2006, at 12:58 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the dangers of terrorists, and talk so little about what Americans are made of. Someone needs to talk to Americans about finding their own bravery, and about getting on with life without being constantly frightened by every little thing. What allowed us in England to hang on during the war was not our military force, but the spirit of the people. Americans have this same spirit, but no one talks about it. That's a shame, because it is the best protection we've got. Someone must tell them. This is something I and others were saying in late 2001/early 2002. The panic from the world's most powerful people was baffling. It was like watching a giant weightlifter get bitten by a tiny ant and acting as if a shark had taken his leg. Yes, it was a spectacular and horrific attack with a terrible loss of life. But it was the indignity of the response that disappointed. Having had an allergy to fire ants at one point, I could have a little bit of sympathy for someone in that position. :) (The weightlifter, I mean, not the powerful people.) But a *brief* panic would take care of the problem as well as Benadryl after awhile. (By brief I mean 10-15 min. Then it was time to go back to dealing with things in a reasonable manner.) Yep. Afghanistan was that quick response. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Charlie Bell wrote: On 29/09/2006, at 12:58 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the dangers of terrorists, and talk so little about what Americans are made of. Someone needs to talk to Americans about finding their own bravery, and about getting on with life without being constantly frightened by every little thing. What allowed us in England to hang on during the war was not our military force, but the spirit of the people. Americans have this same spirit, but no one talks about it. That's a shame, because it is the best protection we've got. Someone must tell them. This is something I and others were saying in late 2001/early 2002. The panic from the world's most powerful people was baffling. It was like watching a giant weightlifter get bitten by a tiny ant and acting as if a shark had taken his leg. Yes, it was a spectacular and horrific attack with a terrible loss of life. But it was the indignity of the response that disappointed. Having had an allergy to fire ants at one point, I could have a little bit of sympathy for someone in that position. :) (The weightlifter, I mean, not the powerful people.) But a *brief* panic would take care of the problem as well as Benadryl after awhile. (By brief I mean 10-15 min. Then it was time to go back to dealing with things in a reasonable manner.) Yep. Afghanistan was that quick response. And if they'd just stuck with that and seen it through properly, it would have been much nicer all around. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:12 AM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, was assumed bod and soul into heavenly glory. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone ever referring to the bod of Mary. For all we know, it was even a bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... Bodacious??? Bodacious??? My God man! She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! xponent Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru rob No, I wasn't. Heh! you should have beenG She only had 1 baby, after all. I don't think any of you are thinking this through. If that one baby takes after the father just a littleWHOA! God is infinite, so if Jesus foetus is just a little infinite, Mary gets stretch marks you could ride motocross on. Cocao Butter aint helpin that. It is a miracle Mary survived the birth. I mean it had to be a miracle because killing your mother just so you can incarnate is bad for your church cred.(Look at all those other G/gods whose mothers died at birth, they are so unremembered you only need one hand to count the ones sustained into modern memory.) I don't even want to think about her breasts. Can you imagine what it takes to feed a slightly infinite infant? Gives a whole new meaning to Don't touch me, I'm sore. And maybe she had the sort of genes that protect you from stretch marks. :D Hey, she could have had genes for instant healing and immortality but giving birth to Gods own snookie-ookums would have wrecked her. xponent Dependent On Gods Infinite Sense Of Humor Maru rob G ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Someone Must Tell Them
At 09:59 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Perhaps we should stop calling that group Al Qaeda and start calling them Al Kato. (After Clousseau's sparring partnerG) I see that and think O.J. Simpson's guest. :P What is it they say about great minds thinking alike . . . ? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
At 06:27 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:12 AM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, was assumed bod and soul into heavenly glory. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone ever referring to the bod of Mary. For all we know, it was even a bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... Bodacious??? Bodacious??? My God man! She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! xponent Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru rob No, I wasn't. Heh! you should have beenG She only had 1 baby, after all. I don't think any of you are thinking this through. If that one baby takes after the father just a littleWHOA! God is infinite, so if Jesus foetus is just a little infinite Isn't a little infinite a contradiction, like a little bit . . . ? , Mary gets stretch marks you could ride motocross on. Cocao Butter aint helpin that. It is a miracle Mary survived the birth. I mean it had to be a miracle because killing your mother just so you can incarnate is bad for your church cred.(Look at all those other G/gods whose mothers died at birth, they are so unremembered you only need one hand to count the ones sustained into modern memory.) I don't even want to think about her breasts. Can you imagine what it takes to feed a slightly infinite infant? Gives a whole new meaning to Don't touch me, I'm sore. And maybe she had the sort of genes that protect you from stretch marks. :D Hey, she could have had genes for instant healing and immortality but giving birth to Gods own snookie-ookums would have wrecked her. xponent Dependent On Gods Infinite Sense Of Humor Maru I always tell people that the fact that He created me proves He has one . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Infinities large and small (was Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies)
On 9/28/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't a little infinite a contradiction, like a little bit . . . ? No... some infinities are smaller than others, as is easily demonstrated. There are an infinite number of even numbers and an infinite number of odd numbers. Those two infinities are the same size. However, there are an infinite number of even AND odd numbers and that infinity is twice as big as the first two. Makes your head hurt, doesn't it? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pioneer anomaly, was: Re: 9-11 conspiricy theories
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 7:56 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Pioneer anomaly, was: Re: 9-11 conspiricy theories Dan Minette wrote: ... When scientists tracked one of the interplanetary probes, the found an anomaly in its orbit. After doing exhaustive work ruling out the conventional explanations that they could think of, and after discussing it with colleagues, they published the anomaly. For a year, papers were written testing and ruling out various explanations. Finally, someone came up with the actual cause, and the anomaly was forgotten. Dan-- This was part of a good example of how to point out problems while retaining credibility. But if you're talking about the Pioneer anomaly, please cite. Last I heard, it still had not been explained. Here are a couple recent items: I looked for my source on this, but I didn't see it when I Googled the subject. I think, from reading the other articles, there are conventional explanations that have not been ruled out. I think what I saw was the first of these, which caused most folks to drop their interest in the subject. So, I probably overstated the case on the anomaly. The odds on new physics have been reduced by showing that it is not inconsistent with conventional explanations, but new physics has not been completely ruled out. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Economics of global warming, was: Re: 9/11 conspiracies ...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:19 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Economics of global warming, was: Re: 9/11 conspiracies ... For example, take automobile purchases. My family has three cars, one of which gets around 17 miles per gallon (no metric conversion, tough). The plan is to keep driving it for the short term, but you can be sure the next car we buy will get much better mileage. So you get no short term reduction in fuel usage, but definitely a long term one. But, some people are buying cars this year, right? One good number to look at is the switch from buying trucks (which include pick ups and SUVs) to automobiles. From 2005 to 2006, for the first half of the year, the relative fraction of car sales went up about 5% while the relative percentage of trucks went down by the same amount. Let's assume that this change takes place overnight. What happens to fuel usage by folks who either buy automobiles or light trucks/SUV? It's down 1% from what it would be without the change in sales. This is after a tripling in price. My point is that this decision making, which should be very susceptible to energy costs, will have a minimal impact on fuel consumption in that sector. Looking at the eia website we see that price did have some influence on driving habits. During that same period (jan-jun '06), consumption did fall about 2% from the same period in '05to be even with gasoline consumption in jan-jun '04. So, the big upsurge in prices barely affected either car buying habits or consumption over a 2-year period. I'll agree that the rise in US fossil fuel use will probably slow as a result of price increases, but we were talking about needing a 20% drop from present values. In terms of per capita use, we'd be talking about a 30% or so reduction in 10 years. Similar arguments can be made for energy used for heating, etc. It takes time to insulate and modify buildings, but if it's economically favored, it will eventually happen. My point is that the mere slowing of the increase in consumption of in response to a drastic rise in prices indicates that we are fairly far from the point where significant reduction in energy usage is economically favored. I'd like to look at some analyses too. I believe that an analysis that does not factor in a large increase in energy conservation is simplistic. The ones I've seen do assume that less fossil fuel will be consumed. But it's not at all clear what should be counted as a cost of energy conservation. Greatly reducing energy use would change the economy significantly. Some sectors would lose, but others would gain. People would change their behavior as well. What is the long term cost of driving less, and in a smaller car? Driving less? You see your relatives less often, you spend an extra hour a day commuting, etc. The real way to tell is gradually impose a $5/gal $10/gal tax on gasoline and see what happens. And, remember, if the per capita usage of gasoline is cut 30% in 10 years, that's only enough to handle the private auto part of the picture. I've partially dealt with cheap. With all due respect, I don't think that question has really been addressed. If _all_ the SUVs and pickups were switched to the more fuel efficient cars, that would only cut the fuel use by that sector by ~12.5%. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infinities large and small
Nick Arnett wrote: No... some infinities are smaller than others, as is easily demonstrated. There are an infinite number of even numbers and an infinite number of odd numbers. Those two infinities are the same size. However, there are an infinite number of even AND odd numbers and that infinity is twice as big as the first two. Makes your head hurt, doesn't it? No, it doesn't, and you didn't quite express the paradox. There are infinite even numbers, there are infinite odd numbers, there are as much even as odd numbers. The paradox is that there as many integer number as even numbers, even though only half of the integer numbers are even. What makes _my_ head hurt is writing bureaucratic memos :-/ Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. A recession? Or would it take a depression, or a catastrophic meltdown of the whole world economy? I was thinking of a temporary halt...during the recession. If World GDP dropped, then I'd expect energy consumption to also drop. And what about the rest of the world, which wants what the US has: IOW, the same standard of living, and all the stuff . I Googled the official Chinese news on this, and found that they touted a 5 year plan to reduce energy consumption about 4%/year. That sounded like a unbelievable goal, with their economy growing at about 10% or so per year for the last few years. Then I read the fine print, and they pulled a Bush. They wanted to reduce energy usage/GDP by 4%/year. That would still, if their growth continues, result in about a 30% increase in their fossil fuel usage during that time. They will still consume less than the US in 5 years, but I'd expect them to exceed our consumption in 10-15 years. And, of course, they have long insisted on being outside of any agreement on emissions reduction. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Infinities large and small
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Infinities large and small Nick Arnett wrote: No... some infinities are smaller than others, as is easily demonstrated. There are an infinite number of even numbers and an infinite number of odd numbers. Those two infinities are the same size. However, there are an infinite number of even AND odd numbers and that infinity is twice as big as the first two. Makes your head hurt, doesn't it? No, it doesn't, and you didn't quite express the paradox. There are infinite even numbers, there are infinite odd numbers, there are as much even as odd numbers. The paradox is that there as many integer number as even numbers, even though only half of the integer numbers are even. Right, but there are not as many integers as there are real numbers between 0 and 1. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
Dan wrote: If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Poor leadership. Can I have a cite for that BTW. Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. I think competent leaders would go a long way towards solving our problems The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it. Let's just look at the US. In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% above the Kyoto quota for the US. Now, it's safe to say it's 25% above. So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2 production 20%. Yes, let's look at the U.S. Per capita energy consumption (2001) 7.92 kgoe/y. Japan: 4,091.5. U.K.: 3,993.8. France: 4,458.6. Germany 4,263.5. Russia: 4,288.8. Denmark: 3,706.1. OK, here's one that's in the parking lot of the ballpark; Australia: 5,974.9. That's 75% of U.S. consumption. Shame on you Australia 8^). The sources and uses of power are available on the net. I've looked at them. So, my question is...given what's available, how can the US cut it's use of fossil fuel by 20% while still experiencing economic and population growth over the next 10 years? Looking at other industrialized nations, perhaps it isn't necessary to be wasteful to be successful. Beyond that, I'm guessing that there are ways that CO2 can be cut without lowering consumption. I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining and publishing the best understandings of the community. The numbers I quote do not include mights or coulds. They determined the probable range from the best available data, models, etc. I do not give nearly as much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's strong hurricanes are the result of global warming. There is no consensus on that. I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured. Now, I'm not saying that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not show it at the present time. I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore. I see Bush-league scientific and economic understanding. Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced here before) for being able to do it is: when we need to do something, it can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project. The reviews by scientists I've seen say that in his movie Gore got the science right for the most part. Here's one: [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores- movie/] or http://tinyurl.com/gke7d So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto. Set a goal to lower consumption to 125% of that of similar industrialized nations. Raise taxes so that consumers of energy cover the cost of the infrastructure required for its use plus some percentage for incentives, subsidies for those technologies that lower the demand for polluting sources and research. Continue to develop and implement methods for Co2 sequestration. Among many other proactive things we could be doing. Under Bush we're going backwards. In the time it took me to type this post we spent more than $5 M in Iraq, but lowering our dependence on Mid East oil would do more (IMO) to reduce the threat of terrorism than everything the Bush administration has ever done. If we can afford such a costly war, why can't we afford to vacuum? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 4 NFL Picks
I was a poor 8-6 last week, taking me to 29 - 17 for the season. The Upset Special, though is 3-0 after the Saint came marching back in to New Orleans in a big way.Can I keep the streak going? Arizona at Atlanta - I expect the Falcons to rebound in a big way from Monday night's debacle, and get that running game well back on track. Pick: FALCONS New Orleans at Carolina - The Saints have proven they're for real - its hard to be a cheap 3-0. The Panthers have Steve Smith back, and yet still struggled last week in Tampa. But I don't want to go back to the well once too often. Pick: PANTHERS Minnesota at Buffalo - Go figure, I said before the season that I fully expected the Bills to be 1-2 at this point, so why am I so miserable? Perhaps because they so easily could have gone 3-0 over this stretch and been in full control of the division? It says here that they don't let this one slip away. Pick: BILLS San Diego at Baltimore - Part of me says that Philip Rivers will struggle against Baltimore's big-time defense. On the other hand, Baltimore nearly lost to Cleveland last week.. Pick: CHARGERS Miami at Houston - I'm not sure that I'll find a single reason to pick Houston this year. As bad as Miami has been.. Pick: DOLPHINS Dallas at Tennessee - On paper, this is a gross mismatch. But with the huge Terrell Owens distraction this week, Tennessee at home, and just possibly getting Kerry Collins fully up-to-speed finally, I sniff an upset. Pick: TITANS UPSET SPECIAL San Francisco at Kansas City - Desperation time in KC at 0-2, even with Damon Huard at QB they have to get this done. Pick: CHIEFS New York Jets at Indianapolis - The Jets were lucky to steal one in Buffalo last week, won't happen again. Pick: COLTS Detroit at St. Louis - The Lions have been horrible, but I have a suspicion that Lions Offensive Coordinator will have something up his sleeve against his old team. Pick: LIONS Jacksonville at Washington - Hard to believe that the Redskins are home underdogs.. Yes, they started 0-2, but this is a completely different team with Clinton Portis. Pick: REDSKINS New England at Cincinnati - Something is definitely wrong in New England..having to escape from the Bills at home, nearly blowing a big lead to the Jets, and getting shut out for three quarters by the Broncos.. And the Bengals look very much for real after big road wins in KC and Pittsburgh. Pick: BENGALS Cleveland at Oakland - Its only Week 4 and this already looks like a who cares game? The only interesting question is whether the Raiders might just possibly be even worse than the Texans? Pick: BROWNS Seattle at Chicago - The game of the week, and battle of undefeateds. I'm going to go with the Seahawks rallying together after the injury to Sean Alexander to pull out the win. Pick: SEAHAWKS Green Bay at Philadelphia - The Eagles have a ton of injuries, but I can't see them blowing two in a row at home. This one should be a fun shootout though. Pick: EAGLES ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious about this wink. Are you not fully on-board with the doctrine of the assumption? It's not terribly important to me either way, though I am inclined to think that it is a Churchly creation intended to exalt Mary, rather than a historical fact. Not at all. The Assumption is interesting because it is a two-fer. If you disagree with this dogma, then by definition, you also have to disagree with the dogma of papal infallability. In this case though, I fully believe the teaching. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infinities large and small (was Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies)
At 08:01 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/28/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't a little infinite a contradiction, like a little bit . . . ? No... some infinities are smaller than others, as is easily demonstrated. There are an infinite number of even numbers and an infinite number of odd numbers. Those two infinities are the same size. However, there are an infinite number of even AND odd numbers and that infinity is twice as big as the first two. Makes your head hurt, doesn't it? Given that the cardinality of Z, 2Z, 2Z+1, and Q are all the same they are all countably infinite, which means that you can set up a one-to-one relationship between the members of any one of them and the members of the set of natural numbers as you can set up a one-to-one relationship between the members of any one of them and the members of any one of the others, that assertion indeed makes my head hurt, and it probably does the same to any of the other mathematically-savvy list members. Now, if you claimed that R is an example of an infinite set which is indeed larger than any of the aforementioned sets it is uncountably infinite, which means you can show that if you attempt to set up any one-to-one relationship between the members of any one of them and the members of R there will be members of R which are not matched with any member of the other set that would indeed be a valid example of one infinity which is smaller than another. Transfinite Arithmetic Is Different Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infinities large and small
At 09:00 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: No... some infinities are smaller than others, as is easily demonstrated. There are an infinite number of even numbers and an infinite number of odd numbers. Those two infinities are the same size. However, there are an infinite number of even AND odd numbers and that infinity is twice as big as the first two. Makes your head hurt, doesn't it? No, it doesn't, and you didn't quite express the paradox. There are infinite even numbers, there are infinite odd numbers, there are as much even as odd numbers. The paradox is that there as many integer number as even numbers, even though only half of the integer numbers are even. What makes _my_ head hurt is writing bureaucratic memos :-/ Or even reading them. I'd much rather be dealing with infinities involving mathematics rather than stupidity . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
At 11:09 AM Thursday 9/28/2006, William T Goodall wrote: On 28 Sep 2006, at 2:51PM, Dan Minette wrote: I have tried to accurately express the consensus by quoting sites that should represent the consensus: i.e. the UN agency responsible for obtaining and publishing the best understandings of the community. The numbers I quote do not include mights or coulds. They determined the probable range from the best available data, models, etc. I do not give nearly as much credence to single papers that indicate, for example, that last year's strong hurricanes are the result of global warming. There is no consensus on that. I think the error bars on the number of strong hurricanes 30 years ago are large enough so that no signal can be measured. Now, I'm not saying that I know there is no significant correlation, but that the data do not show it at the present time. The problem with a 'wait and see' approach to the problem is that if the more extreme scenarios *do* turn out to be correct then it will already be too late to do anything to significantly ameliorate the situation. 'Wait and see' is not a neutral position, it is gambling that the milder scenarios prove to be correct. I do not see this attempt by folks like Gore. I see Bush-league scientific and economic understanding. Gore's argument (from an interview I referenced here before) for being able to do it is: when we need to do something, it can be done...just look at the Manhattan Project. So, if you think it is the equivalent of vacuuming, then it should be straightforward to come up with a demonstration of how cheap and easy it would be for the US to meet Kyoto. Cheaper and easier than dealing with storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of refugees. If it comes to that Maru What if we spend the $10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with the storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of refugees? Or if China doesn't want to go along with what the rest of the world does and uses its military to enforce its right to do whatever it chooses to do? (I suppose nuclear winter might indeed be a way to counteract global warming . . . ) Or, of course, all of the above . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
At 09:02 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:53 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. A recession? Or would it take a depression, or a catastrophic meltdown of the whole world economy? I was thinking of a temporary halt...during the recession. And I'm not sure that even a temporary halt would not lead to something more like a catastrophic economic meltdown rather than a mere recession . . . If World GDP dropped, then I'd expect energy consumption to also drop. And what about the rest of the world, which wants what the US has: IOW, the same standard of living, and all the stuff . I Googled the official Chinese news on this, and found that they touted a 5 year plan to reduce energy consumption about 4%/year. That sounded like a unbelievable goal, with their economy growing at about 10% or so per year for the last few years. Then I read the fine print, and they pulled a Bush. To be fair, Bush is not the first politician to do something like that, and is unlikely to be the last. I think it is a characteristic behavior of the political sub-species. They wanted to reduce energy usage/GDP by 4%/year. That would still, if their growth continues, result in about a 30% increase in their fossil fuel usage during that time. They will still consume less than the US in 5 years, but I'd expect them to exceed our consumption in 10-15 years. And, of course, they have long insisted on being outside of any agreement on emissions reduction. Like I said. So who plans to make them comply with whatever the rest of the world decides (assuming the rest of the world agrees, which will probably occur sometime after you see flocks of pigs flying overhead . . . )? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mauro Diotallevi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My grandmother used to say two things about this depending on her mood; either Catholic heirarchy created this reverence of Mary because she's the most submissive role model those guys in Rome could find Which isn't exactly true. of course, her submission to God's will in The Annunciation story has long been a model for Christians, she nevertheless is one of the only people recorded in the Bible as not just openly disagreeing with Jesus, but as also succeeding in changing Jesus' (God's) mind! There's something to be said for that! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bodacious??? Bodacious??? My God man! She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! xponent Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru rob Actually, there is a tradition of Catholic/Christian thought that since a difficult birth was one of the punishments given to women as a consequence of original sin in Genesis, and that since Mary was born, by the grace of God, without original sin, that therfore the birth of Jesus was relatively painless. I'm not 100% just yet if I buy that one though... JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pencimen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:58 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab... Dan wrote: If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a tripling of price? Poor leadership. Can I have a cite for that BTW. Every indication is that a worldwide recession is the only thing that will stop the growth of fossil fuel usage. I think competent leaders would go a long way towards solving our problems The widespread use of nuclear power will slow it, but is not projected to stop it. Let's just look at the US. In '04, CO2 emissions were about 23% above the Kyoto quota for the US. Now, it's safe to say it's 25% above. So, to take the extremely small step that Kyoto represents: delaying global warming 2-5 years will require the US to cut CO2 production 20%. Yes, let's look at the U.S. Per capita energy consumption (2001) 7.92 kgoe/y. Japan: 4,091.5. U.K.: 3,993.8. France: 4,458.6. Germany 4,263.5. Russia: 4,288.8. Denmark: 3,706.1. OK, here's one that's in the parking lot of the ballpark; Australia: 5,974.9. That's 75% of U.S. consumption. Shame on you Australia 8^). Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US. Since we are talking about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP At http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1p.xls there is a full listing from '80 through '04. The US is at about the 70% point in terms of increasing energy per capita. To illustrate this, let me give a subset from the list, ranked by increasing per GDP usage: Ireland 4,992 Denmark 5,653 Italy 6,044 United Kingdom 6,205 Japan 6,532 Austria 6,660 Germany 7,175 France 7,209 Greece 7,391 Taiwan 8,680 Australia 8,922 China 9,080 United States 9,336 Sweden 9,356 Netherlands 9,673 Belgium 10,254 Zambia 11,773 Norway 12,228 South Africa12,477 Korea, South12,567 Canada 13,530 Korea, North15,716 Russia 15,763 Iceland 17,496 Saudi Arabia17,554 Ukraine 18,443 United Arab Emirates36,022 Kuwait 38,203 Syria 38,540 I did select a few more high ones than low one, but some of the unusual high ones caught my eye. I knew Canada's usage was significantly higher than the US, but I didn't realize how much Syria used. Looking at other industrialized nations, perhaps it isn't necessary to be wasteful to be successful. Compact nations do have advantages in energy usage. Older nations also have an advantage...because their cities were built before cars. The country of Japan, for example, has a population density that is 75% higher than that of _the Houston Metropolitan Area_. Beyond that, I'm guessing that there are ways that CO2 can be cut without lowering consumption. There are, and they should be used. But, I was only pointing out the cost of the first small step. At http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Stabilizing%20CO2%20in%20Atmosphere%20at%20Cu rrent%20Levels.pdf#search=%22co2%20emissions%20reduction%20required%20stop%2 0global%20warming%22 http://tinyurl.com/zp6l9 the reduction in CO2 emissions needed to keep CO2 at the present atmospheric level is 60%. This is just the first site I googled, and I'd be happy to see other references that give other numbers. But, it's in the ball park of what I've seen elsewhere. So, I'll readily accept that, for a few trillion, the US could revamp it's infrastructure to be more energy efficientapproaching the efficiency of Japan. But, that would only be the first step to stopping global warming. I've googled some more and at: http://www.earthaction.org/en/archive/95-01-cich/alert.html I have obtained the following quote. To reach this goal, however, will require much greater reductions in emissions than merely returning to 1990 levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of leading scientists, predicts that 60% cuts are needed. And at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/post_411.html Unfortunately, everything else is not equal. By 2030, according to a paper published by scientists at the Met Office, the total capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon will have reduced from the current 4bn tonnes a year to 2.7bn. To maintain equilibrium at that point, in other words, the world's population can emit no more than 2.7bn tonnes of carbon a year in 2030. As we currently produce around 7bn, this implies a global reduction of 60%. In 2030, the world's people are likely to number around 8.2bn. By dividing the total carbon sink (2.7bn tonnes) by the number of people, we find that to achieve stabilisation the weight of carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 0.33 tonnes. If this problem is to be handled fairly, everyone should have the same entitlement to release carbon, at a rate
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
Ronn! wrote: What if we spend the $10T (Dan's figure) to reduce the anthropogenic component of global warming and then find out that it was not the primary driving cause and we still have to deal with the storms, floods, droughts, famines and hundreds of millions of refugees? Or if China doesn't want to go along with what the rest of the world does and uses its military to enforce its right to do whatever it chooses to do? (I suppose nuclear winter might indeed be a way to counteract global warming . . . ) Or, of course, all of the above . . . Then we'll have a cleaner, more efficient world that, having worked together and not been entirely successful at solving a problem, can use that problem solving experience to face a grave threat to their survival. And how is it that we expect China to participate if the so called leaders of the world don't? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
Dan wrote: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/george_monbiot/2006/09/ post_411.html I think this gives some idea of just how expensive it will be to stop global warming by holding the CO2 levels steady in 25 years. The article you cited also says: There are three things on which almost all climate scientists are now agreed. The first is that man-made climate change is real. The second is that we need to take action. The third is that, to avert catastrophic effects on both humans and ecosystems, we should seek to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2C above pre- industrial levels. Two degrees is the point at which some of the most dangerous processes catalysed by climate change could become irreversible. This includes the melting of the west Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which between them could raise global sea levels by seven metres. It includes the drying out of many parts of Africa, and the inundation by salt water of the aquifers used by cities such as Shanghai, Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, Kolkata, Mumbai, Karachi, Lagos, Buenos Aires and Lima. It also means runaway positive feedback, as the Arctic tundras begin to release the methane they contain, and the Amazon rainforest dies off, turning trees back into carbon dioxide. In other words, if the planet warms by 2C, 3C or 4C becomes almost inevitable. and But to use this as an excuse for inaction is like remaining on a railway track while the train is hurtling towards you. We might not have time to jump out of the way, but if we don't attempt it, the disaster is bound to happen. If we in the United Kingdom are to bear our fair share of dealing with climate change, we must cut our emissions by 87% in 24 years. So Dan, do we do nothing and hope beyond hope that our scientists are wrong? What is the cost of doing nothing? Doug Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infinities large and small and silly SF stories.
In a message dated 9/28/2006 8:43:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 08:01 PM Thursday 9/28/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/28/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't a little infinite a contradiction, like a little bit . . . ? No... some infinities are smaller than others, as is easily demonstrated. You are describing a story I wrote. Unpublished of course. Two scientists at lunch talk about infinity. If there are an infinite number of monkeys typing at typewriters, how many janitors do you need to clean up after them. If one janitor can take care of the mess made by fifty monkeys, you still have an infinite number of janitors. So if you still have infinity, why not make it one janitor per a hundred monkeys. Two hundred. Three hundred. Five hundred. At what point to you have an infinite number of pissed off janitors who are now on strike? The twist ending, being that the story itself was typed by a monkey. A perfectly typed story. Ook, oink. DAMN. Vilyehm Finite Day, You Are the One can be read, with difficulty, at Baen's slush pile. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
Dan wrote: Their per capita GDP is also 75% of the US. Since we are talking about economic costs, let's look at energy usage per unit of GDP Can you expand on the connection between energy use and GDP? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
