[Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
Is it possible to download entire files belonging to a selected You-Tube videos onto one's own hard drive? I also wonder if the format is proprietary, making it extremely difficult to watch you-tube videos off-line using standard off-the-shelf s/w. This was fairly easy to do with google videos, but I don't see an equivalent mechanism that allows me to do so within You Tube. Anybody know? steve -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
google videos are a listing and player of regular videos that people have put up online in various places, so you download the video file itself. youtube is for broadcast on youtube only. there IS software that will capture youtube videos for you though. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:45 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to download entire files belonging to a selected You-Tube videos onto one's own hard drive? I also wonder if the format is proprietary, making it extremely difficult to watch you-tube videos off-line using standard off-the-shelf s/w. This was fairly easy to do with google videos, but I don't see an equivalent mechanism that allows me to do so within You Tube. Anybody know? steve -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
From leak: google videos are a listing and player of regular videos that people have put up online in various places, so you download the video file itself. youtube is for broadcast on youtube only. there IS software that will capture youtube videos for you though. Regarding what kinds of software, any recommendations or suggestions to look into? I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to working with and reprocessing different kinds of video formats, particularly streaming video broadcasts. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
Youtube vids are flash video player format (.flv). You can d/l through a proxy site and save to your PC. You can also d/l a .flv player all for free. There is also conversion s/w if you so desire: http://www.mydownloadvideo.com/ Terry On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From leak: google videos are a listing and player of regular videos that people have put up online in various places, so you download the video file itself. youtube is for broadcast on youtube only. there IS software that will capture youtube videos for you though. Regarding what kinds of software, any recommendations or suggestions to look into? I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to working with and reprocessing different kinds of video formats, particularly streaming video broadcasts. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Morgan Solar technology: light-guide concentrator for (non-tracking?) CPV
Stationary (I guess) light-guide concentrator for CPV: http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/11/morgan-solar-technology.html : It's an approach dubbed concentrating photovoltaics, or CSP, and a number of companies are in the race, among them U.S. ventures GreenVolts, Energy Innovations, and SolFocus, as well as Ottawa-based Menova Energy. Some, like SolFocus, use mirrors to focus the light on a solar cell as if 500 suns are shining down. Others claim the same goals by using specially designed lenses or prisms that concentrate the light like a magnifying glass on the cell. It's a tricky thing to do. The target, often a tiny little chip no larger than a square centimetre, must be hit with pinpoint precision. Structures must be able to handle strong wind and special tracking systems are needed to make sure the sun is always shining directly. Being off by a few millimetres isn't good enough. Also, the heat that results from focusing 500 suns, and up to 2,000 suns for some technologies, requires some creative cooling to keep the cells from melting. Morgan Solar has come up with a completely different approach that relies on what it calls a light-guided solar optic. Basically, pieces of acrylic or glass are designed to capture sunlight as it hits a triangular surface less than a centimetre thick. Once inside the material, the sunlight is trapped and corralled through a bottom layer to one corner, where a tiny sliver of solar cell is positioned to absorb the barrage of concentrated light. The triangles are packaged together to form a square about the size of a Compact Disc case and dozens of these squares make up a single panel. It's bloody amazing, says William Masek, president and chief technology officer of Brockville-based Upper Canada Solar Generation Ltd., which has plans to build 50 megawatts of solar farms in Ontario. In the next few weeks he will begin field-testing Morgan Solar's prototypes. They probably have the most breakthrough solar technology announced in a long time. Masek says the cost savings for him could be enormous if the technology, as claimed, can affordably convert more of the sun's energy to electricity per square metre than conventional solar panels. With traditional solar panels we'll need over a thousand acres of property. But if we switch to their system, we can cut that land requirement in half and also substantially cut our costs, he says. The materials that make up the panels are nothing fancy or expensive, Nicolas Morgan says during an interview at the company's office. The solar panels are flatter than the competition, lighter, cheaper to build and can concentrate the light at up to 1,500. This is completely new. Nobody has done it this way, he says. Sounds ingenious... can it work as claimed? Michel
Re: [Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
ooo, didnt know that terry, thanks. that does make it a bit easier. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Youtube vids are flash video player format (.flv). You can d/l through a proxy site and save to your PC. You can also d/l a .flv player all for free. There is also conversion s/w if you so desire: http://www.mydownloadvideo.com/ Terry On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From leak: google videos are a listing and player of regular videos that people have put up online in various places, so you download the video file itself. youtube is for broadcast on youtube only. there IS software that will capture youtube videos for you though. Regarding what kinds of software, any recommendations or suggestions to look into? I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to working with and reprocessing different kinds of video formats, particularly streaming video broadcasts. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
Kewel! Thanks Terry, Leak, I'll look into this tonight. I'm trying to transfer a number of recent Project Camelot Bob (Robert) Dean interviews to a DVD format that can ultimately be played on a regular TV. There are some UFO associates I know in the Milwaukee area that I'm sure would enjoy hearing what Dean has to say. Not all of them are that computer savvy. ooo, didnt know that terry, thanks. that does make it a bit easier. From Terry: Youtube vids are flash video player format (.flv). You can d/l through a proxy site and save to your PC. You can also d/l a .flv player all for free. There is also conversion s/w if you so desire: http://www.mydownloadvideo.com/ Terry Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
The World Energy Outlook 2008 was launched today in London at 10:00 am local time. http://www.iea.org/ Fresh sources of oil equivalent to the output of four Saudi Arabias will have to be found simply to maintain present levels of supply by 2030, one of the world's leading energy experts has said. The International Energy Agency is to call today for an energy revolution and a major de-carbonisation of global fuel sources as the world confronts tighter oil supplies caused by shrinking investment. This is a major shift in view by the IEA. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:OT: You-Tube video download question
This has worked well for me: http://www.downloadyoutubevideos.com/ Others: keepvid.com getmiro.com At 07:45 AM 11/12/2008, you wrote: Is it possible to download entire files belonging to a selected You-Tube videos onto one's own hard drive? I also wonder if the format is proprietary, making it extremely difficult to watch you-tube videos off-line using standard off-the-shelf s/w. This was fairly easy to do with google videos, but I don't see an equivalent mechanism that allows me to do so within You Tube. Anybody know? steve -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Stale gasoline problem with plug in hybrids
Here is a critique of a Wall Street Journal article, written by Felix Kramer of CalCars. It addresses some issue that have come up here, notably the problem of leaving gas in the tank of a plug-in hybrid. Sort of address it . . . - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is part of the W.S.J. article comments in square brackets by Kramer. Obama's Car Puzzle by Holman Jenkins, Jr. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122645159441719325.html You have in GM's Volt a perfect car of the Age of Obama -- or at least the Honeymoon of Obama, before the reality principle kicks in. Even as GM teeters toward bankruptcy and wheedles for billions in public aid, its forthcoming plug-in hybrid continues to absorb a big chunk of the company's product development budget. This is a car that, by GM's own admission, won't make money. It's a car that can't possibly provide a buyer with value commensurate with the resources and labor needed to build it. It's a car that will be unsalable without multiple handouts from government. [COMMENT: even before federal tax credits were announced, 40,000 buyers signed up at http://www.gm-volt.com, in addition to the 400,000 who signaled their interest when the car was announced.] The first subsidy has already been written into law, with a $7,500 tax handout for every buyer. Another subsidy is in the works, in the form of a mileage rating of 100 mpg -- allowing GM to make and sell that many more low-mileage SUVs under the cockamamie fleet average mileage rules. [COMMENT: cars and trucks still have separate MPG standards.] Even so, the Volt will still lose money for GM, which expects to price the car at up to $40,000. [COMMENT: most new cars lose money when they're first produced. GM's modular Volt design is a platform for multiple cars (starting with the Opel Flextreme diesel version of the Volt).] We're talking about a headache of a car that will have to be recharged for six hours to give 40 miles of gasoline-free driving. What if you park on the street or in a public garage? Tough luck. [COMMENT: The first buyers will be among the many tens of millions of households with garages.] The Volt also will have a small gas engine onboard to recharge the battery for trips of more than 40 miles. Don't believe press blather that it will get 50 mpg in this mode. [COMMENT: That's what well-designed hybrid cars get.] Submarines and locomotives have operated on the same principle for a century. If it were so efficient in cars, they'd clog the roads by now. [COMMENT: That's why the Prius and the Honda Civic sell well.] (That GM allows the 50 mpg myth to persist in the press, and even abets it, only testifies to the company's desperation.) Hardly mentioned is the fact that gasoline goes bad after a few months. If the Volt is used as intended, for daily trips of 40 miles or less, the car's tank will have to be drained periodically and the gas disposed of. [COMMENT: In a well-designed system, stale gas doesn't become an issue for a long time--not having been to a gas station for that six months to a year be a problem I'd love to have!]
Re: [Vo]:Stale gasoline problem with plug in hybrids
Let me add that it would be easy to have the onboard computer keep track of fuel consumption, and warn the driver that the gas might be getting stale. It could issue a message such as: WARNING: Gasoline has not been refilled in 8 months. We recommend you drive the next 400 miles without recharging, to use up some of the old gasoline. Refill the tank when it is below 1/4 full. The Prius onboard computer monitors the gas tank, and resets the efficiency calculation when it is refilled. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2008/fact_sheets_08.pdf Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to $26.3 trillion to 2030. Unit capital costs, especially in the upstream oil and gas industry, have continued to surge in the last year, more than offsetting the slower projected rate of growth in supply. While the credit squeeze is not expected to affect long-term investment, it could delay spending in the medium-term, especially in the power sector, which accounts for $13.6 trillion, or 52% of the total. Most of the rest goes to oil and gas, mainly for exploration and development and mostly in non-OECD regions. This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to convert the world to renewable energy. See figures I produced in 2005: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf The Solar Tower numbers I used are already reduced by a factor of 1/2.50 for plain solar panels ($1/W vs $2.50), enough to possibly build a storage and transport structure for world solar energy production to meet all energy needs for the world for $30T. The fact sheet says:Around three-quarters of the projected increase in oil demand worldwide comes from the transport sector – the sector least responsive, in the short term, to price changes. Despite continuing improvements in average vehicle fuel efficiency, the sheer growth of the car fleet – from an estimated 650 million in 2005 to about 1.4 billion by 2030 – is expected to continue to push up total oil use for transport purposes. There is not expected to be any major shift away from conventionally-fuelled vehicles before 2030, though the penetration of hybrid-electric cars is projected to rise, reducing oil demand growth. The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) reducing speed limits, (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles, (3) adapting road standards to enhance safety and feasibility of use of limited top speed (say 35 mph) vehicles on local highways, providing new low speed route interconnections where necessary and economically viable, and quickly establishing licensing standards for low top speed vehicles, (4) reducing safety standards for low top speed home built EVs, possibly producing special safety standards and fully funding licensing inspections, (5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel, say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize renewable energy and conservation, (6) eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, (7) subsidizing the conversion of vehicles, especially commercial fleets, to natural gas (see pickensplan.com) and construction of natural gas filling stations, (8) subsidizing energy efficient door-to-door taxi/limo/bus services, (9) increasing subsidies for and construction of electric powered mass transit systems, (10) increasing bicycle pathways, (11) subsidizing and cutting the red tape required to build a nationwide underground HVDC backbone power distribution system, a project similar in national defense significance to the construction of super highways in the 1950s, and one that might best be accomplished by the government directly using bid contracts. Ultimately, fleet truck and airline fuel requirements can be met by biofuel, especially with oil from algae. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
In prior post: (8) subsidizing energy efficient door-to-door taxi/ limo/bus services, should have read (8) subsidizing energy efficient door-to-door taxi/limo/bus/delivery services,. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Horace Heffner wrote: Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to $26.3 trillion to 2030. . . . This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to convert the world to renewable energy. Exactly! And it stands to reason that would be the case. An industry has to replace most of its capital equipment in 25 to 50 years (depending on the industry). It takes very roughly as much equipment to make the economically viable forms of renewable energy as it does to produce conventional energy. So, it boils down to a choice: Do we rebuild most of conventional energy industry over the next 25 years as it wears out, or do we build something else? Put that way, the cost of wind turbines, solar thermal and so on looks a lot cheaper. And cold fusion, needless to say, is cheaper than free. It is a free lunch you are paid to eat. The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) reducing speed limits . . . Good idea. I do not see why any highways has a speed limit above 60 mph. Between Atlanta and Washington there are hundreds of miles of 65 to 75 mph highway, which seems excessive to me. . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. (5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel, say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize renewable energy and conservation . . . Good idea. Long overdue. Most of the other items Horace listed are Good Ideas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. [snip] - Jed The majority of people can't or won't afford a $40,000 EV. Some great designers are forced to 3 wheel designs in order to fall under motorcycle rules. India will be, or are, way ahead of us in vehicle cost and energy conservation simply because their safety standards are lower. Meanwhile some people here, especially women, are switching to motor scooters which are way less safe than even motorcycles. There should be a special class of lightweight 4 wheel vehicle that is treated like a motorcycle. Perhaps limiting this class to single passenger vehicle designs would be OK to prevent children passengers. I think 4 wheel vehicles are much safer than 2 or 3 wheel designs in inclement weather. This would be a move toward safety, not away from it. Those wanting higher levels of safety can spend the $30,00 - $40,000 necessary. Those of us willing to take some risk to drop our gas consumption by 60% or more should be allowed to, especially since for many of us it means going to a 2 wheeled vehicle. The auto industry is in the tank anyway. Now is the time to put a low cost high production high milage option into the market place as quickly as possible. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Here is a recent story on Amyris, one the companies which can convert sugarcane direct into gasoline or diesel, which will hasten the switch from fossil fuels to renewables: http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/index.php?option=com_newsroomItemid=27 There is also an article in today's SF Chron on the company. One thing not being mentioned so far - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet so to speak ... and that is mostly for fear of fomenting early problems with US agriculture (which has already been successful in keeping Brazilian ethanol from being imported) is this: When Amyris teaches them (Brazil) how to make renewable gasoline from sugarcane (for a small royalty), there is no way to stop that fuel from coming-in by the mega-barrel. We should be grateful, right? Renewable fuel, carbon neutral - and from an ally not an enemy. But there is a downside for tree-huggers. If you thought the Amazon rain forest was in trouble before now - just wait. This could be the death warrant. Guess you could call it the 'Grateful Dead' but after all - that is their problem, right? This dilemma then - is the new trade-off - with a new set of morals in the balance: renewable gasoline - not ethanol - which is a good thing as it is CO2 neutral - but based on the same sugarcane, farmed on former rain forest land, and harvested with low-wage labor, but coming from a Free Market country and ally of ours, yet one with few eco-morals - which is poised to take full advantage of the situation in a rapid manner. Tough choices - since to limit the imports now to protect a rain-forest that the owners do not care about protecting- that plays right into the hands of OPEC and increases CO2 at the same time. - Original Message From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Horace Heffner wrote: Cumulative investment in energy-supply infrastructure amounts to $26.3 trillion to 2030. . . . This kind of expenditure is not far off from what it could take to convert the world to renewable energy. Exactly! And it stands to reason that would be the case. An industry has to replace most of its capital equipment in 25 to 50 years (depending on the industry). It takes very roughly as much equipment to make the economically viable forms of renewable energy as it does to produce conventional energy. So, it boils down to a choice: Do we rebuild most of conventional energy industry over the next 25 years as it wears out, or do we build something else? Put that way, the cost of wind turbines, solar thermal and so on looks a lot cheaper. And cold fusion, needless to say, is cheaper than free. It is a free lunch you are paid to eat. The above assumptions could be dramatically wrong. For example, the US could vault forward on transportation energy conversion by (1) reducing speed limits . . . Good idea. I do not see why any highways has a speed limit above 60 mph. Between Atlanta and Washington there are hundreds of miles of 65 to 75 mph highway, which seems excessive to me. . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. (5) establishing a gasoline tax that varies in order to maintain a fixed price for fuel, say the equivalent of $3/gallon and using the money to subsidize renewable energy and conservation . . . Good idea. Long overdue. Most of the other items Horace listed are Good Ideas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
Horace Heffner wrote: The majority of people can't or won't afford a $40,000 EV. That price is ridiculous. I am sure GM can make them much cheaper, if they try. Toyota makes lots of money selling the Prius at $22,000. The Prius is one small mod away from being a plug-in hybrid. (Or $6,000 away, if you do it yourself.) Some great designers are forced to 3 wheel designs in order to fall under motorcycle rules. India will be, or are, way ahead of us in vehicle cost and energy conservation simply because their safety standards are lower. As far as I know, US energy efficiency is far above India and China. Of course our cars use more energy because they are ridiculously oversized and inefficient, but our other industries, space heating and the like is ahead of the third world. Overall energy consumption is much higher because we consume more goods, but the individual goods are more efficiently produced. Plus, to put it bluntly, in India they do not value human lives as much as we do -- in dollar terms, that is. In the US it would be false economy to produce unsafe cars. The money you save in equipment would be lost to increased medical costs and lost income from lives cut short. In the US, automobile accidents cost roughly $230 billion per year in medical bills, as I pointed out in Chapter 17 of my book. The medical costs would show up as increased auto insurance cost. Most of the cost of automobile insurance already goes to pay medical bills, not replacement equipment. That is why my Prius insurance is almost as cheap as the Geo Metro, even though the Prius is worth ~$18,000 and Metro is officially worth nothing. That is to say, I have no collision coverage for it; only injury and liability. (In case I cause an accident I gotta pay for the other guy's car.) The Metro is an unsafe tin can on wheels, whereas the Prius has every known safety feature. Meanwhile some people here, especially women, are switching to motor scooters which are way less safe than even motorcycles. But I have to admit they look like fun! No worse than bicycles. I assume they can only be used on surface roads under 45 mph. That's the only sane use for a Geo Metro, by the way. There should be a special class of lightweight 4 wheel vehicle that is treated like a motorcycle. Well, you are talking about a vehicle limited to 45 mph surface roads only, that makes some sense, but I doubt it would be much of a market that in the US. Rather than do that they should make a short-range electric car. Short-range in the U.S. being ~100 miles. In Japan ~50 to ~80 miles would suffice. (It is a smaller country.) Many short-range Japanese all-electric cars are expected to go on sale in 2009. They have been showing them on NHK national news for months. The Mitsubishi i MiEV is a good example. It will cost $27,000 in limited production, and go into mass production soon. Specs: The i-MiEV is powered by a compact 47 kW motor that develops 180 Nm (133 lb-ft) of torque and a 330V, 16 kWh or 20 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. Top speed is 130 kph (81 mph), with a range of up to 130 km (81 miles) for the 16 kWh pack or 160 km (99 miles) for the 20 kWh pack. The motor is coupled to a reduction gear and differential to drive both rear wheels. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/mitsubishi_i_miev_electric_car.php Cars generally cost more in Japan than in the U.S., so $27,000 is quite reasonable. The auto industry is in the tank anyway. Now is the time to put a low cost high production high milage option into the market place as quickly as possible. Amen. But no quicker than possible. Let's see if they can do it 15 years after Toyota began selling the Prius, and 5 years after they sold a million Priuses. Can they do at least as well as Mitsubishi, a company that has been on the ropes for years? Is that a challenge they cannot meet? In that case they deserve to go bankrupt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] . . . (2) reducing safety standards for EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles . . . BAD IDEA!!! Red Alert! Completely unnecessary and counterproductive. People will get the mistaken idea that EVs are inherently unsafe. As I wrote the other day: New technology is usually judged more harshly than existing technology. We expect much higher levels of safety and reliability from airplanes and automated people-mover trains than we do from automobiles. When new technology fails at first it often develops an unwarranted bad reputation, and it never recovers. EV with present day safety standards will save huge amounts of energy, especially gasoline. That's good enough. Oh! The above statement (2) above should say: (2) reducing safety standards for A SPECIAL CLASS OF EVs, allowing personal choice to assume risk at least up to that presented by motor cycles,. Yes, I certainly agree with you Jed that it is desirable to have production EVs and PHEVs with the same standards as regular vehicles. In the present economic and world circumstances I think it is also important to give the consumer the option to forego those high safety standards to buy a comparatively safe light 4 wheel vehicle instead of going to a motorcycle. A special class of vehicles could provide that choice without compromising the image of ordinary vehicles. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
I wrote: As far as I am concerned, they should put automatic sensors in all automobiles and charge anyone who goes over the speed limit a hefty fine, say $1 per mile per minute; i.e., $15 for travelling at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone for 1 minute, automatically subtracted from your credit card 10 minutes after the sensor reports the violation. I should point out that we already have this arrangement in the US, and people like it. The incentive works the other way around. They do not fine you for going too fast, but they reward you for staying at the speed limit. That is to say, several insurance companies offer to install a continuously recording GPS gadget that keeps track of where you go, how fast you drive, and the TOD (time of day), and compares that data to the speed limits which are mapped for most major roads. People who acquiesce to this arrangement are mainly people who do not intend to drive much anyway, people who seldom drive at night, and people like me who do not intend to exceed the speed limit. They get reduced insurance rates. It is an invasion of privacy but as the Internet has demonstrated, most people do not care much about privacy anyway. I myself would not give a fig if some person at the insurance company was able to track my every automobile trip, if they charged me ~$100 less every month in return. If someone were to offer me $100 a month to tell them where I go every day I would be happy to do that, as long as it did not take any effort on my part. I suppose it would be nice if you could shut the feature off temporarily. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too! To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 11:19 PM I suggest I-Thank-You's (money created independently of central banks) should be injected into the economy to cover the cost of tuition. Not much of an economist myself, so I couldn't really say if it would help or not. It might, but if it's a good idea, no self-respecting politician will try it. Other student expenses could be covered by an optional program of community service. Good idea, but the key word here is 'optional.' Involuntary servitude, as Emmanuel and presumably (only presumably now, and not definitely, since Change.gov was scrubbed) Obama want, is slavery. Hmm. One wonders if minorities would be exempt from this servitude, or at least given a big heaping helping of ways to get out of it, or ease on through. By the way, guys... I'm a bit surprised none of the main beef of my post was answered or discussed in any way. Usually the residents here like to beat the living hell out of dissenting opinions. The deafening silence speaks volumes. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
Kyle Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good idea, but the key word here is 'optional.' Involuntary servitude, as Emmanuel and presumably (only presumably now, and not definitely, since Change.gov was scrubbed) Obama want, is slavery.. . . By the way, guys... I'm a bit surprised none of the main beef of my post was answered or discussed in any way. Usually the residents here like to beat the living hell out of dissenting opinions. The deafening silence speaks volumes. Speaking for myself, I don't respond to things like that because it is embarrassing. I mean, I pity you. You need to take a deep breath and come to your senses. Do you REALLY, honestly, for one second believe that Obama or any other U.S. politician would make a thing like this obligatory? That is so far out of the realm of the possible it isn't worth the effort to deny. What else do you think: that Obama is secretly a Muslim and he intends to make us all bow to Mecca?!? That he isn't a U.S. citizen? Apparently you buy these absurd fantasies wholesale from right-wing organizations. You are a gullible person. I suggest you calm down and try reading valid sources of information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking for myself, I don't respond to things like that because it is embarrassing. I mean, I pity you. You need to take a deep breath and come to your senses. I don't need your pity, or anyone else's. I don't do the whole handout thing. Do you REALLY, honestly, for one second believe that Obama or any other U.S. politician would make a thing like this obligatory? Are you that bleached in the head? It said MANDATORY on Change.gov! It said MANDATORY in Rahm Emmanuel's damned book, for crying out loud! YOU need to read the facts, I'm afraid. If the facts from the proverbial horse's mouth aren't valid, what do you suggest is? Note, I said this PROBABLY WOULD NOT happen. But, they do say this in their own published works. To deny it makes your position as a bastion of truth extremely questionable, to say the least. That is so far out of the realm of the possible it isn't worth the effort to deny. What else do you think: that Obama is secretly a Muslim and he intends to make us all bow to Mecca?!? That he isn't a U.S. citizen? I don't think he's a Muslim, and for that matter, don't have much of a problem with it anyways. I've come to know and befriend many Muslims in the past year or so, and find them to not be a bunch of nutcases. They're actually quite friendly, and pointed out to me many times that stunts like suicide bombing is forbidden by their Koran. Kindly remove your strawman. As to his citizenship, I don't know. He might NOT be an American citizen. Or he might. Who can say? Er...maybe the SCOTUS. Obama apparently has to answer to them with documentation by Dec. 1st. I take no position on this, because I simply do not know. I don't have the facts on that matter, and I haven't seen the birth certificate. I honestly do not know. But I do know that Obama could have quelled these fears easily by simply complying before now. I do know that if McCain (who I did not support) did this same thing, you and your buddies would be howling like mad. Apparently you buy these absurd fantasies wholesale from right-wing organizations. You are a gullible person. I suggest you calm down and try reading valid sources of information. Change.gov is right wing? Rahm Emmanuel's book is right wing? Well shit, I guess the Republicans managed to hoodwink us all...they must still be in power. What's a valid source of information? National Enquirer? Is it gullibility, or just being alert? If you've got any common sense, you'll keep an eye on anyone who has power, Republican, Democrat, Green, or Neptunian, and make sure it is not abused. Power does go to people's heads, and the checks and balances do NOT always ensure that abuses won't get out of hand. If you think there's no chance for anything, either now, or fifty years from now, to happen that is so bad, there's about six million Jews who'd like to differ with you. --Kyle
[Vo]:OT: Death of a Dream in the Land of Opportunity
Recent discussions between Jed and Kyle pertaining to the friggin mile thread inspired me to post my own wacky interpretation of recent events. So, into the fray I go. shameless personal essay Death of A Dream in the Land of Opportunity A New Age (Buddhist) Fable As interpreted by Steven Vincent Johnson Recent planetary events have managed to stir up both elation and considerable uneasiness among many souls currently incarnate in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Some of those incarnated souls are in fact feeling downright alarmed. One could say that recent political developments had not been hinted at in the any of the brochures they had read that convinced them to take a spin in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Everyone that has a smattering of kosmic-Cense makes plans before embarking upon their next Wheel-of-Fortune spin, to paraphrase an ancient Buddhist concept. We make assessments of the current environment. We take a look at our own long-term goals and match them up to the environments and circumstances we see unfolding across the planet. Finally, based on these assessments we decide precisely where our next vacation will unfold. We take all the necessary shots, make sure our passport is current. We stop our Kosmic MailBox, (the Sunday newspaper too), call the taxi and head for the airport. Transmigration Airlines, flight 777 to Oakland, California, is now boarding at gate 7. Time to climb on board the vessel! First scheduled stop: Kindred Hospital, Obstetrics – SF Bay Area, 2800 Benedict Drive, San Leandro, just south of Oakland, California. Several decades later in the midst of our vacation things seem to be progressing nicely. It appears that we planned the trip well. All the brochures and rave testimonials (plus a few regrettable slide shows forced on us from recent returnees) all agreed that the Land of Opportunity is the place to go to if one wishes to plunder. Of course, none of the brochures worded it as such. The word plunder was never used in any of the brochures. Most used phrases like ...the best country on the planet in which to manifest your goal of getting rich – and if you're lucky, v-e-r-y rich! Chalk it up to shrewd advertising. These celestial Ad agencies know their craft well. They were after all hired by crafty outfits with their own agendas, like Transmigration Airlines Incorporated. Keep those vessels loaded! The Ad agencies have done just that, supplying crop after fresh crop of eager souls all savoring over prospects of doing their share of the plundering. But then, someone totally unexpected buys a ticket on TA Inc. He has vacationed in similar lands before. He plundered, and got plundered, probably more times that he would like to remember. For some odd reason he feels compelled to return, to embark on another Spin of the Wheel. What could this returning vacationer possibly do or possibly get out of planning another vacation in a place where he has already played the game of plundering to death. Surely he would prefer to vacation elsewhere. It would appear that he feels compelled to return for a specific reason. It would appear that he feels compelled to suggest to the other vacationers that perhaps there might be another way of enjoying a spin in the Land of Plenty. Perhaps there's plenty of plundering to go around for everyone. Perhaps plundering all the gummy bears directly into ones personal pocket isn't the only yardstick in assessing whether one has actually won at the Wheel of Fortune. Unfortunately, many of the vacationers will have none of that. They don't like this unexpected newcomer's suggestions. They are in fact terrified that someone new with a different agenda than theirs might actually jump into the swimming pool... THEIR swimming pool. They don't like it one bit that this newcomer would suggest things that had not been advertised very clearly in the brochures they read. What this vacationer suggests... well, shoot, that's NOT why I came here for! Good Grief, they exclaim, if this vacationer gets his way, where will we go to continue our plundering! Wait a minute! Time out! They begin to retaliate. Schemes are drawn up. Some proclaim that this new vacationer is a socialist, that he's actually a Mue-slam in disguise. DON'T BE FOOLED, they chant over and over! The contradictions of sticking all these labels together under one advertising campaign doesn't seem to matter – particularly that in one sentence some might label this vacationer a socialist while in the very next sentence attempt to insinuate that he's rly a Mus-slam, which pretty much has been interpreted to mean his ulterior motive is to establish a strict religious Theocracy in the Land of Opportunity, and of course, a non-Christian Theocracy. And if none of those rotten eggs stick there always the final trump card to be thrown: He doesn't even need a tan. No fair! I demand a refund! Sorry, read the fine print. All TA transactions are final. You're round trip
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
To Jed, and all Vortexians who are still here: Most likely, this will turn out to be nothing. I said that. So I think I covered my ass previously. If the above sentence is too difficult to understand, I'll try to explain it better. R.C. Macaulay could probably say it better, and more humorously, than I can. R.C., always have enjoyed your posts. They make this place seem not so depressing. I will state this for you (Jed) and you (all Vortexians). Please let this sink in: I do NOT think it will get this bad. But with threats such as this insinuated on Change.gov, Barack Obama's official website of transition, and in Rahm Emmanuel's (future Chief of Staff) book, we as /The People/ cannot be too careful. If you think we CAN be too careful, then I ask you to review the past 8 years. It hasn't been too great for freedom. I specifically stated I did NOT endorse the views of the website hosting the link I posted, only the specific content I pointed out, which is in print in Emmanuel's book, and was in the pre-scrubbed Change.gov official website. I am NOT a Republican. I am NOT part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' whatever that is. I am an American Citizen, and I have the right and responsibility to make certain that my nation is governed by the will of the people, not tyrants, from whatever direction they might come. I HOPE you are completely right, Jed. To NOT hope you are right, to not hope that I am having completely unfounded fears, would be alarming indeed. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
Another thing about your beliefs, Kyle. To be honest, I find them depressing. You seem to have no faith in your fellow Americans -- even conservatives. If you follow the news, you must be aware of the fact that many conservative Republicans endorsed Obama during the race. These include public officials, people who worked closely with Reagan, Charles Fried, who a close adviser to McCain, but who asked to be removed from the committee, and of course Collin Powell. These are important are people who value their reputations. They do not make endorsements lightly. They do their homework, and they have inside information on everyone in Washington. They know more about Obama then I do, and I darn well know that his plans for public service do not include obligatory service or slavery. I am sure that if Mr. Fried knew that Obama intended to enslave the country, he would not have endorsed him. He would have known -- it isn't the kind of policy you can keep secret. Because you believe this sort of outrageous nonsense, you obviously have not read Obama's policies, and you know nothing about him. That's fine, but you should stop and ask yourself, is it likely that Charles Fried also endorsed the man without bothering to read anything about him? Or worse, and infinitely less probable, that he knows Obama intends to enslave us but he is all for it? You remind me of the skeptics who read nothing about cold fusion, and know nothing about it, and make up all kinds of improbable nonsense to fill the gaps. Then they forget that they invented this nonsense, and based upon it they conclude that all researchers must be liars, criminals and lunatics. Wave your hand, make up facts as you go along, and you can reach any conclusion, no matter how outlandish. You can avoid this folly by *learning something about the subject* from credible sources. Even if you do not wish to take the time to read Obama's policies, you should have a little more faith in people such as Freid. And in me, for that matter. We are sober, careful people. You should realize that we are not plotting to destroy the nation or enslave you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
Kyle Mcallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you that bleached in the head? It said MANDATORY on Change.gov! It said MANDATORY in Rahm Emmanuel's damned book, for crying out loud! YOU need to read the facts, I'm afraid. I have Obama's book in hand, and I have a great deal of information about him. I assure you, this is a misunderstanding, or something taken out of context. There is not the slightest chance that any American politician would advocate such policies. He would never be re-elected again, period. The only semi-mandatory public service that I have heard of is for some high school kids in some districts, for a few hours per semester. They have to work in a church, shelter, or with special education kids or what-have-you. All very safe, white-bread type public service. It is nowhere near as mandatory as phys-ed -- it is more like sex education, meaning you can get out of it with a note from your parents. They have non-mandatory public service in Atlanta public schools, which I recommend. My kids and their friends thought highly of it. The only other semi-mandatory service, nowadays, is that many able-bodied people on welfare have to work for the community. They have to be looking for a job, or doing public service. They cannot sit at home. There are day care services for their kids. Nobody I know objects to this, least of all the people on welfare. They are happy to get out of the house. It seems only right to me, and I doubt many conservatives would object (unless they happen to be on welfare and would prefer to watch TV). Obama has, of course, suggested that college kids sign up for public service in return for scholarships. I personally think that is a better idea than simply handing out Pell Grants, becasue it builts character and gives them work experience. Plus it makes them more inclinded to study, because they have paid a price for the tuition, and they realize how hard it is to get the money. But perhaps you prefer to see young people get money for nothing, with no committment or effort on their part. Or perhaps you consider that slavery? Obama and I are strong believers in taking personal responsibility, working for what you get, studying, turning off the TV, giving young people a stake in their education, etc. As Martin Fleischmann says, we are painfully conventional people and conservative, too. I am a little surprised that so many conservatives misread Obama and his intentions. As I said, they appear to know nothing about him. Their source of information must be propaganda spread by right-wing extremists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
Okay! I have located the missing Obama web pages and the policy that was deleted. It is here: http://versionista.com/diff/ibDjuZFzAZv2WvoBhXQncQ-edits/?showscript Here is the text. Part of it was deleted and replaced. I just copied it here, with the deletion marked with a strikeout line. Let me put it in square brackets as well, in case the strikeout does not survive: Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by [developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama] setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Okay, there we have it. He is talking about middle school and high school kids. Such community service requirements are widespread in the U.S., and have been for a long time. I have never heard of one that you cannot get out of with a note from the parents, just as you can get out of sex education or school trips. The school always send home a note asking the parent's permission. The activity never counts toward graduation. (There is no penalty if you give it a miss.) This is not controversial or surprising to anyone who has had kids in public school anytime in the last 30 years. I do not know about private schools, but public schools either strongly recommend public service stints of this nature, or they make it an obligation subject to the parent's approval. To get riled up about a thing like this, or to call it slavery, is the height of childish, ignorant, over-reaction. If your kids ask to be excused from this sort of thing, I recommend you tell them they have to do it. I never saw a kid who didn't want to do it, or who did not benefit from it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too! Obama and I are strong believers in taking personal responsibility, workingfor what you get, studying, turning off the TV, giving young people a stake in their education, etc. what a load of misplaced hooey. harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obama and I are strong believers in taking personal responsibility, workingfor what you get, studying, turning off the TV, giving young people a stake in their education, etc. what a load of misplaced hooey. Well, okay. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Obama but do you have any information that makes you doubt that assertion as it applies to me? Do I strike you as like someone who despises hard work and knowledge? Or -- perhaps I misunderstand -- are you saying that personal responsibility and hard work are hooey? Cold fusion is a narrow field, but I am confident that if you can read my book, and the papers I wrote, and all the papers I edited and uploaded, you will see that I am a big believer in studying, rigor, hard work, etc., even when (as in my case at present) it does not pay a salary. It is hard to imagine someone does not believe in hard work when he does that work voluntarily! If you think that rewriting Russian papers and translating Japanese papers is easy I invite you to assist. I don't mean to brag, but I believe both Obama and I have established our bona fides when it comes to hard work. He had a stellar academic record at Harvard Law, which is not an easy school. More recently, starting with no resources or party support he made mincemeat out of the Clinton political machine and then soundly defeated the GOP. Say what you like about him, he certainly is hard working! Also, I assure you that Martin Fleischmann is, as he claims, a painfully conventional person. In some ways. Most of the time. But then again Ed Storms might disagree when it comes to theory. And I will grant that Fleischmann is probably the only world-class electrochemist whose secret ambition has been to give a lecture in iambic pentameter. But all that aside, he is about as normal as they come . . . in electrochemistry. Bockris, on the other hand, is flamboyant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: They'll take a friggin' mile... And your little people, too!
Jed Rothwell wrote: Even if you do not wish to take the time to read Obama's policies, you should have a little more faith in people such as Freid. And in me, for that matter. I have faith in the laws of physics, anything will sink if you get it heavy enough. The bow of the USS Titanic has gone under, and water is coming down the hatches and vents, as well as up from the hole in the bottom. We are sober, careful people. You should realize that we are not plotting to destroy the nation or enslave you. But you are destroying the country and enslaving us. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
RE: [Vo]:IEA admits major oil shortfall
I'm reading from latest posting, backwards, so it's not in the least surprising that this thread now has nothing to do with oil as the subject line suggests!!! :-) Given that, and just wanting to stir the pot a bit... Jed writes: As far as I am concerned, they should put automatic sensors in all automobiles and charge anyone who goes over the speed limit a hefty fine, say $1 per mile per minute; i.e., $15 for travelling at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone for 1 minute, automatically subtracted from your credit card 10 minutes after the sensor reports the violation. and I myself would not give a fig if some person at the insurance company was able to track my every automobile trip, if they charged me ~$100 less every month in return. If someone were to offer me $100 a month to tell them where I go every day I would be happy to do that, as long as it did not take any effort on my part. Those who sacrifice freedom for a little security (or comfort, i.e., lower insurance bills) deserve NEITHER! Think this was Ben (the lightning rod) Franklin... And that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the slow erosion of our constitutional rights. Be prepared to justify your position with Supreme Court cases... -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1782 - Release Date: 11/11/2008 7:32 PM
