Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy usage. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended) into changing what we use as energy. Jeff, you're a bright guy. No question about that. A lot of people on this list can make well reasoned arguments about what we should do and what our desired outcome is. As a professional manager, no offense, what I want is a plan and actionable, measurable objectives to make it so. I know how to make people do things. They pay me to do that. Saying we need to isn't cutting it. I think that defining specific, measurable objectives is important. For instance. Your mission, Jeff, is to reduce consumer credit rates below 10% across the board within the next six months. That is what I expect of you, and if you can't do that then you're fired. Your tools are the money we've poured into lenders. If you can't restrain them, you're fired. And I'll get another manager. Your mission, Jeff, is to ramp up our commitment in Afghanistan effectively and reduce Coalititon casualties within 10% in the next six months. If you fail, you're fired and I get another manager who can. Your mission, Jeff, is is to rebuild the US infrastructure fast and effectively so that we can serve our citizens and be competitve in the world. If you fail... You get the idea. Specific plans, goals and objectives with very real consequences of failure. I am not playing around, I want this shit happening now or you are off the team. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
I also understand, though not totally agree with your examples. I also used to be a professional manager. I quit. I got tired of living up to expectations similar to ones you posted below. Maybe not worldwide expectations, but company wide. I finally said screw that when the owners wouldn't listen to common sense. I thought about this earlier while watching the Colbert Report and the had a spoof that said Christmas was supposed to save the economy. I had to deal with owners who thought this way, literally. Their business is now gone, statewide, thank God! Some people out of work, but hopefully more out there starting business with brighter ideas. If the business isn't working year round, you're doing something wrong. Or you're in the wrong business. Unless you're only business is to sell Christmas trees that is. Jeff M On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy usage. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended) into changing what we use as energy. Jeff, you're a bright guy. No question about that. A lot of people on this list can make well reasoned arguments about what we should do and what our desired outcome is. As a professional manager, no offense, what I want is a plan and actionable, measurable objectives to make it so. I know how to make people do things. They pay me to do that. Saying we need to isn't cutting it. I think that defining specific, measurable objectives is important. For instance. Your mission, Jeff, is to reduce consumer credit rates below 10% across the board within the next six months. That is what I expect of you, and if you can't do that then you're fired. Your tools are the money we've poured into lenders. If you can't restrain them, you're fired. And I'll get another manager. Your mission, Jeff, is to ramp up our commitment in Afghanistan effectively and reduce Coalititon casualties within 10% in the next six months. If you fail, you're fired and I get another manager who can. Your mission, Jeff, is is to rebuild the US infrastructure fast and effectively so that we can serve our citizens and be competitve in the world. If you fail... You get the idea. Specific plans, goals and objectives with very real consequences of failure. I am not playing around, I want this shit happening now or you are off the team. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you. - Elbert Hubbard * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Maybe not worldwide expectations, but company wide. I finally said screw that when the owners wouldn't listen to common sense. So I guess I can count you out as Secretary of Commerce? Too bad. Well, it isn't a job I'd take either. Maybe you'd like Secretary of Intransigence. I've always felt that it made me a better leader to have some difficult people on my team. After all it is a compliment to have people that disagree with you actually wanting to work with you. Discernment, and all that. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Maybe you got me wrong. I took it for quite awhile. But after a time you begin to realize others would love to deal with the crap while you're tired of it. So let them. Happiest move I've ever made in my life. By the way, is there a Secretary of Beachs? I love hanging out at the beach nowdays. In fact, on my way to Maui in a couple weeks. And then the big island to see the telescopes. Jeff M On Feb 14, 2009, at 3:25 AM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Maybe not worldwide expectations, but company wide. I finally said screw that when the owners wouldn't listen to common sense. So I guess I can count you out as Secretary of Commerce? Too bad. Well, it isn't a job I'd take either. Maybe you'd like Secretary of Intransigence. I've always felt that it made me a better leader to have some difficult people on my team. After all it is a compliment to have people that disagree with you actually wanting to work with you. Discernment, and all that. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you. - Elbert Hubbard * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Maybe you got me wrong. I took it for quite awhile. But after a time you begin to realize others would love to deal with the crap while you're tired of it. So let them. No, I didn't get you wrong. You are clear as crystal. I got the message, check, 10-4, five by five. OK, you're on the beach. You think that means you're out of the game? Think again. The game has co-opted you. You love it so much that you are actually posting in this thread. You can't give it up and you freaking know it. You hear that giant sucking sound? It ain't the waves, dude. You don't have to post here but you know you want to, OK. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:34 AM, Jeff Miles wrote: Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy usage. Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct, energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. How we get there is the issue. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended) into changing what we use as energy. Very large cities were created due to trade. These huge cities, due to modern transport are no longer necessary. Other way around - modern transport makes huge cities possible - without it we can not supply the food and consumables the denizens require. In our past, city size was a function of available food supply from the local country side via road, river, only occasionally via sea (think Rome). Modern economic theory - that would be free trade - when combined with modern transport made it possible to have large cities where the city owners did not control the source of the food. They're just a remanent of the past that's struggling to hold on. Struggling to hold on? The rate of urbanization is increasing last I heard. How many cities are going broke trying to sustain their population and infrastructure? How many are spending huge amounts of money on stuff other than core city services? Bigger isn't always better. Didn't computers prove that? It is also irrelevant, because sometimes bigger is better or more efficient. Also, industrial capacity is a bit of a misnomer. It's relevant if you hope to sustain the world with no change. But the world with no change in its' past structure is becoming less relevant everyday. Industrial capacity refers to the ability to make stuff - industry - that people want. I don't know what that will be next year, let alone next decade, with enough precision to get rich off the knowledge, but I do know people will want industrial products. We, as a country or world, didn't start using electricity or oil over night. But no one ever went back on electricity once it was available to them. It's going to take time, acceptance and a means of profitability for those who help to make it viable for the industrialized world as a whole. There have been many great ideas put forth over the years to help jump start this. There has been next to no $ put forth compared to what's been spent to keep the oil flowing. And the oil, as anyone can plainly see, is a finite resource. But like our economy is showing today, we love to put stuff off. Thank our progressive hide the true cost of things tax structure in part for that. We subsidized oil through our indirect taxes (income, business pass through taxes). Subsidies always distort the market - always. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] OS X replicating software?
Something like Carbon Copy Cloner ? http://www.bombich.com/ccc At 3:24 PM -0800 2/13/09, db wrote: Date:Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:24:33 -0800 From:db db...@att.net Subject: Recommendation for OS X replicating software? I would like to set up automatic file replication on a pre Time Machine Tiger G5 so as to provide a 2nd copy of all critical user data files on a separate but local hard drive. Any recommendations? Hopefully freeware. db -- E. Riley Casey Silver Spring MD 301-608-2180 ph 301-608-0789 fx 301-440-2923 shoe phone Entertainment Sound Production ( http://www.ESPsound.com ) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
I'm using Bombich Carbon Copy Cloner at this moment. I use it too, but have found it less than reliable over the years. His top selling point for version 3 is that it is not as bad as previous versions. That kind of MS-style marketng does not impress. The problem with CCC is that it relies primairly on the UNIX system. CCC is primairly a friendly user interface for configuring UNIX. When something goes wrong the errors you get are from UNIX and therefore do not relate well to the settings you made in CCC. Last week a client's computer reported during a CCC run: The shell tool could not be found. Error code 35. Well, what does one do with that? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
or get rid of all subsidies and see which technologies survive longest. Hear, hear! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy usage. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended) into changing what we use as energy. The easiest way to do this is for the state to stay out of the energy pricing business. Let high energy prices do their job. When gas hit $4/gallon last year, people's habits changed. They drove less and they purchased more fuel efficient vehicles, so much so that auto companies that depended on large truck/SUV sales as a large part of their profit margin are on the skids (and for a number of other reasons too). People used significantly less energy, period. To add onto the conversation about being more energy efficient, you do what you can. I replaced all but 3 bulbs in the house, 3 dozen in total, with CF bulbs over 3 years ago. The 3 daylight-temp incandescent bulbs are in our bathroom, for grooming purposes, natch. We're replacing our 48 year old wooden windows with much better vinyl windows a few at a time, to avoid taking on a home equity line. We keep the thermostat at 67 degrees max with a programmable unit and it goes down during the day and at night. Even then, we still get a $300 gas bill for our 1,800 sf house (I need to insulate the attic more, but I haven't had time. I may just pay someone to do it so it gets done.) Oil, coal and gas will eventually be replaced as primary energy generation sources when other energy sources become either economically (I'm looking at you, solar) or technologically (fusion) viable and also as consumers increase demand for alternative energy sources. While high energy prices can do good, artificially forcing consumers to pay even more, by the state interfering in the market by creating net-negative boondoggles such as ethanol or mandating x% of non-hydrocarbon generation, won't help and will only slow the natural evolution of the market towards a less carbon dependent state. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
At 12:45 PM -0500 2/14/09, Jeff Wright wrote: or get rid of all subsidies and see which technologies survive longest. Hear, hear! With regard to discontinuing subsidies, you have two chances: slim and none. Those subsidies were bought and paid for, and will be defended with great vigor. Who's a cynic? Not me; I'm a realist. -- Roger Lovettsville, VA * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Oil, coal and gas will eventually be replaced as primary energy generation sources when other energy sources become either economically (I'm looking at you, solar) or technologically (fusion) viable and also as consumers increase demand for alternative energy sources This is correct in terms of economic theory; the problem is that it isn't forward-looking. As long as oil prices remain low, there's little incentive for the private sector to invest a lot of capital in alternative sources, especially in carbon-neutral alternative sources. By the time there is sufficient incentive, it may be too late. Last summer's high prices had no natural cause. They were created by speculation, not by supply/demand issues--in fact, supply was up and demand was down. My understanding (and this is something that I've heard but haven't researched) is that, with prices back down, already the ratio of efficient to inefficient vehicle sales has dropped, and people are driving more. Consumer memory appears to be very short. Given this situation, it's entirely possible that, if left to market forces only, development of alternatives won't come in time to avoid some very nasty consequences. This is why government support for research might not be a bad thing; one of the functions of good government is to support things like this when it's necessary and the private market isn't going to cut it. It just has to be smart enough to avoid foolishness like ethanol, hydrogen, and biodiesel. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
By the way affordable is in the eye of the beholder, What may be affordable to you is not to me. Damn straight, Reverend. The first Earth Day in the 1970s was embraced by the so-called counterculture. The more entrepreneurial and creative people with almost no budget [like us] used their imagination and sweat to retrofit and build thousands of low-energy homes. If you're planning to build a new house it's easier to design efficiency from the ground up, but new materials then--Tyvek, metallic Mylar--were used in retrofits, as were R-Max and Thermax polyisocyanurate [mostly nontoxic foam] insulation sheets. If the hippies could do it on the cheap, so can you. Early guide was The Food and Heat Producing Solar Greenhouse by Rick Fisher and Bill Yanda. Mother Earth News has published thousands of inexpensive projects for energy efficiency and alternative energy. It's easier to find how-to info now with the Internet, http://tinyurl.com/bqlblz, even through the DOE, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter/. If you can't afford to buy it, build something youself with the help of friends, or in our case, Amish neighbors. For those in the DC area, visit the solar open house in Takoma Park, http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/. Just as we never let the lack of money keep us from traveling [see Lonely Planet books], we also haven't allowed not having enough money keep us from optimizing our energy use comfortably. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
With regard to discontinuing subsidies, you have two chances: slim and none. Those subsidies were bought and paid for, and will be defended with great vigor. Oh, I'm under no such illusion that they ever will go away. The rush, these past few weeks, of the vested interests to step over one another for their chance to be stimulated shows that. I just like the idea. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
This is correct in terms of economic theory; the problem is that it isn't forward-looking. As long as oil prices remain low, there's little incentive for the private sector to invest a lot of capital in alternative sources, especially in carbon-neutral alternative sources. By the time there is sufficient incentive, it may be too late. It is forward looking in that it is implicit that prices will not always remain low. Eventually, supply will run low enough to have a permanent effect on price. Price contains a good amount of information, beyond what it costs the consumer, and anyone with half a brain paying attention to those early signals will be researching suitable replacements; research is going on now. My own prediction is that we'll shift long before that, at least in the first world. Last summer's high prices had no natural cause. They were created by speculation, not by supply/demand issues--in fact, supply was up and demand was down. My understanding (and this is something that I've heard but haven't researched) is that, with prices back down, already the ratio of efficient to inefficient vehicle sales has dropped, and people are driving more. Consumer memory appears to be very short. Speculation only works as long as you have an infinite supply of money or a buyer willing to pay a speculative price. The commodity markets worked as they were supposed to. They based a good deal of the price on the expectation of the artificially stimulated demand from the artificially elevated economies continuing. When those economies naturally went into reverse, lowering the expectation of demand, prices collapsed. It just has to be smart enough to avoid foolishness like ethanol, hydrogen, and biodiesel. Good luck with that. Foolishness should be recognized as an alternative fuel, since our federal government seems to run exclusively on it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
At 07:57 AM 2/14/2009, Matthew Taylor wrote: Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct, energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. How we get there is the issue. Could you please give names, references, something I could read? I haven't read anyone who says energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. If there are intelligent people who think that could be a possibility, that would sure cheer me up. (Plentiful energy that doesn't increase global warming??) Recently I've been remembering an early Robert Heinlein story ... I bet lots of folks on this list know it... the one where they discover a way to capture energy from the sun at no or very little cost... (and fight big companies that don't want this information made public) ... the usual Heinlein interplay between a smart scientist guy and an equally smart wise-cracking woman... I can't recall the name of the story, or find it on my shelves. But I find myself remembering it these days, and thinking if that is ever going to become a reality, now would be a real good time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
From what I've heard hydrogen is the best source. It is everywhere after all. Then there's the moon with it's helium 3. I really don't know much about it except for the teasers on the science shows. I also saw on these science shows they are building a fusion reactor somewhere. I guess they hope to have it running in the next 4-5 years. But commercial application wouldn't come for another 10-25 years? I guess it all depends on how this one works. I'm going to ramble a bit here. I can understand the problems with creating this thing. Blowing something up is easy. Creating a sustainable artificial sun ain't. I mean look at what it's cost and taken to possibly create micro black holes. The LHC has been one huge effort. And even then it breaks down as soon as they turn it on. Of course I understand this, seeing all that's involved. For those who don't know what that is, you can see it here. http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ Anyway, back to your comments and something someone else wrote. I truly believe in hydrogen research. It's global warming friendly. And I don't know why that other someone said it was foolish. In fact was also wondering why they called biodiesel foolish. A friend uses it with no problems. Of course he's a math professor geek who completely tore apart Mercedes station wagon and put it back together to his liking. Yes, he's a perfectionist. To a detrimental point in some instances. As to Heinlein, I've read many of his books, and your description sounds familiar, but I can't think of the exact piece your describing. He was one weird dude. Last one I remember was about an old guy having his brain transplanted into a young female body. You can probably imagine the rest. Jeff M On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Elaine Zablocki wrote: At 07:57 AM 2/14/2009, Matthew Taylor wrote: Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct, energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. How we get there is the issue. Could you please give names, references, something I could read? I haven't read anyone who says energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. If there are intelligent people who think that could be a possibility, that would sure cheer me up. (Plentiful energy that doesn't increase global warming??) Recently I've been remembering an early Robert Heinlein story ... I bet lots of folks on this list know it... the one where they discover a way to capture energy from the sun at no or very little cost... (and fight big companies that don't want this information made public) ... the usual Heinlein interplay between a smart scientist guy and an equally smart wise-cracking woman... I can't recall the name of the story, or find it on my shelves. But I find myself remembering it these days, and thinking if that is ever going to become a reality, now would be a real good time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you. - Elbert Hubbard * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
RSYNC and CRON are rock solid, the latter in use for several decades, the former for many years, thought not several decades. I use both regularly, RSYNC for backups on my OS X boxes, CRON for a variety of tasks (though rarely on my OS X boxes). Matthew On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:39 PM, db wrote: Aww shoot! In reading people's responses to my original post, I thought I might go with CCC but since I am actually researching for a friend, it's not good to hear that I would be setting them up with something that is likely produce problems eventually ... that then I will have to try to fix.. :( I agree that dependable is pretty much everything when it comes to backups What about the other choices mentioned: Deja Vu ($25), Super Duper ($?) and Cronnix / rsync (free)? And I guess upgrading to Leopard Time Machine should be included in the mix... In looking at the reviews (mixed...) for Deja Vu just now, I came across another option ChronoSync ($40): http://www.econtechnologies.com/pages/cs/chrono_overview.html Anybody have experience re: good stability/ dependability with ChronoSync or the other options? db Tom Piwowar wrote: I'm using Bombich Carbon Copy Cloner at this moment. I use it too, but have found it less than reliable over the years. His top selling point for version 3 is that it is not as bad as previous versions. That kind of MS-style marketng does not impress. The problem with CCC is that it relies primairly on the UNIX system. CCC is primairly a friendly user interface for configuring UNIX. When something goes wrong the errors you get are from UNIX and therefore do not relate well to the settings you made in CCC. Last week a client's computer reported during a CCC run: The shell tool could not be found. Error code 35. Well, what does one do with that? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
But we are not doing that now - we subsidize oil prices heavily by spending other tax dollars on deployments to the Gulf to keep the market stable, and the price down. Matthew On Feb 14, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Chris Dunford wrote: it's entirely possible that, if left to market forces only, development of alternatives won't come in time to avoid some very nasty consequences. This is why government support for research might not be a bad thing; one of the functions of good government is to support things like this when it's necessary and the private market isn't going to cut it. It just has to be smart enough to avoid foolishness like ethanol, hydrogen, and biodiesel. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Anyway, back to your comments and something someone else wrote. I truly believe in hydrogen research. It's global warming friendly. And I don't know why that other someone said it was foolish. In fact was also wondering why they called biodiesel foolish. A friend uses it with no problems That was me. Whether it works as a fuel is not the only issue. Hydrogen is a near-perfect fuel, but there's no obvious way to produce it efficiently. All the methods we know about either produce greenhouse gases, are too expensive, require more energy than you get from the hydrogen, or aren't practical for large-scale production. We'd need a cheap, nonpolluting, energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen on a massive scale, and there are no immediate prospects of this (none that I've heard of, anyway). Maybe someone will come up with one, but so far it doesn't look good. Biodiesel creates essentially the same greenhouse gases that oil does when it's burned. It could theoretically replace oil, but it does nothing to help with the climate change problem, so it's not the solution either. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
But we are not doing that now - we subsidize oil prices heavily by spending other tax dollars on deployments to the Gulf to keep the market stable, and the price down. I think many of us are hoping that the new administration is a little smarter about this kind of thing and doesn't regard science and scientists with deep suspicion. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
Have a look at this: http://freeridecoding.com/smartbackup/index.html -- Date:Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:24:33 -0800 From:db db...@att.net Subject: Recommendation for OS X replicating software? I would like to set up automatic file replication on a pre Time Machine Tiger G5 so as to provide a 2nd copy of all critical user data files on a separate but local hard drive. Any recommendations? Hopefully freeware. db * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Been a while since I spent much time on it so I can't recall the specific references. I will see what I can find in my library as time permits. All are in the general class of hard science fiction essayists (i.e. they right fiction, but also right non-fiction on the underpinnings of their fictional works). I can give you some examples from memory though. Fission - expensive now, but the theoretical knowledge is already out there for more efficient designs that are safer still. The worry about waste products is a stalking horse for anti nuclear scare groups. We don't have to keep it around for 10,000 years. We have to keep it around for 100 year, 200 year max, maybe much less. Why? Because by that time we will have the technology to at a minimum toss it into the sun. More likely to recycle it for some productive use. Any prediction that assumes no material advance in capabilities that are only in degree, not in kind is belied by the history of the human race. Solar Power collection - expensive now, but it will get much, much, cheaper. It will get cheaper still in orbit which solves the current problem of waste heat - space is the great heat sync (ok, technically it is not, but you can radiate waste heat there all you want). Power can be beamed down to receptors in suitable places with little impact. Hydrogen fuel - we have no shortage of sea water. Using focused solar or nuclear power we can crack sea water and get what we need for portable power generation. Right now it is not cheap enough, but it will become so. None of these have notable heat producing effects on a global climactic scale. The real challenge is consumption efficiency - can we avoid waste heat from all this plentiful energy. I am not up on the current science in that regard, but what I understand is that if it becomes a problem we will have to be producing a lot more power than we project for the next 50 years. Matthew On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Elaine Zablocki wrote: At 07:57 AM 2/14/2009, Matthew Taylor wrote: Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct, energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. How we get there is the issue. Could you please give names, references, something I could read? I haven't read anyone who says energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its plentiful on demand nature. If there are intelligent people who think that could be a possibility, that would sure cheer me up. (Plentiful energy that doesn't increase global warming??) Recently I've been remembering an early Robert Heinlein story ... I bet lots of folks on this list know it... the one where they discover a way to capture energy from the sun at no or very little cost... (and fight big companies that don't want this information made public) ... the usual Heinlein interplay between a smart scientist guy and an equally smart wise-cracking woman... I can't recall the name of the story, or find it on my shelves. But I find myself remembering it these days, and thinking if that is ever going to become a reality, now would be a real good time. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Oil, coal and gas will eventually be replaced as primary energy generation sources when other energy sources become either economically (I'm looking at you, solar) or technologically (fusion) viable and also as consumers increase demand for alternative energy sources This is correct in terms of economic theory; the problem is that it isn't forward-looking. As long as oil prices remain low, there's little incentive for the private sector to invest a lot of capital in alternative sources, especially in carbon-neutral alternative sources. By the time there is sufficient incentive, it may be too late. While I don't like the subsidies for oil, gas and nukes, having higher fuel tax has worked well in Europe. The goal is to price the petrol and diesel high enough so that people will drive more efficient vehicles, while having a tax base that can cover the cost of having excellent roads and cleaning up pollution. It seems to be working more or less, except, of course in the UK where any opportunity to tax is doubled only because they can. I'm amazed at the improvements in roads even in poorer countries like Portugal, Greece and Croatia. Market forces have made gasoline prices fluctuate wildly, and it will eventually go back up over $4, probably $5. I'd rather see the higher price as a tax to be used for road improvements and pollution abatement than as pure profit for the price-gauging oil cartels. There's one subsidy that is working very well. In Germany, people get grants to put photovoltaic tiles on their roofs. Their electric bills remain the same as before installing the PV tiles with the grant making up the difference, until 5 years when the payback for the roof tiles is complete, after which the energy cost goes down significantly and the grant ends, http://tinyurl.com/dgn4c8. Gotta have some incentive for most people--either carrot or stick. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
Most people I know are happy with SuperDuper. Try it. I haven't tried Time Machine, but since my friends using Leopard still use SuperDuper, there must be some features missing in TM. Haven't tried it yet. What about the other choices mentioned: Deja Vu ($25), Super Duper ($?) and Cronnix / rsync (free)? And I guess upgrading to Leopard Time Machine should be included in the mix... * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Ding! You win the prize for the obvious - the bills threatened the availability of abortion without consequences and had to be opposed - even if this meant tolerating infanticide. The final bill that Obama voted against contained the same language as in a Federal law he said he preferred. Then he voted against in anyway. And no, I did not read about this in any smear site. All of this is in the public record - you just object to the logical conclusion. On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Jordan wrote: Matthew Taylor wrote: I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it is real. I have read the original bill. I have read the final bill after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections. At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and that was a position Obama preferred as a matter of law. In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide? It matters not at all to the question of O's views that some R's also supported it. Obama and other opponents said the bills posed a threat to abortion rights and were unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct that these bills purported to address. Read something other than right wing smear sites. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
