Re: Orangutan granted human rights
In Indonesia rapidly shrinking habitat might force the Orangutang into cultivated areas, where she would be killed as a crop raider. On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > Would this orangutan be better off released in the Indonesian rain forest? > Jon Mann > > Very interesting, so the court decided that the non-human individuals have > rights such as freedom of movement, and that the orangutan was unjustly > imprisoned at a zoo (the story makes it clear that she didn't enjoy being > there, and would probably not choose to remain). I wonder how much precedent > this case will generate, and whether it will get applied to industrial > animals as well? > -- Matt > > A court in Argentina granted human rights to a captive Orangutan: > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/21/us-argentina-orangutan-idUSKBN0JZ0Q620141221 > http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/orangutan-granted-basic-legal-rights-in-argentina#.fimQx6Xkb > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/landmark-ruling-orangutan-granted-basic-rights-argentina/ > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30571577 > > (that's a great improvement from a country where, 40 years ago, humans > didn't have human rights) > > Now, let's Uplift them!!! > > Alberto Monteiro > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Urangutan granted human rights. First step to Urangutan uplift?
Very interesting, so the court decided that the non-human individuals have rights such as freedom of movement, and that the orangutan was unjustly imprisoned at a zoo (the story makes it clear that she didn't enjoy being there, and would probably not choose to remain). I wonder how much precedent this case will generate, and whether it will get applied to industrial animals as well. -- Matt From: ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 5:31 AM Subject: Brin: Urangutan granted human rights. First step to Urangutan uplift? A court in Argentina granted human rights to a captive Urangutan: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/21/us-argentina-orangutan-idUSKBN0JZ0Q620141221 http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/orangutan-granted-basic-legal-rights-in-argentina#.fimQx6Xkb http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/landmark-ruling-orangutan-granted-basic-rights-argentina/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30571577 (that's a great improvement from a country where, 40 years ago, humans didn't have human rights) Now, let's Uplift them!!! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Ad Astra article
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Ellen S. wrote: (Keith) >> Working on a similar article for much higher circulation outlet. http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline > > Alright, now I'm feeling pretty hopeful about what power satellites > can do for us. Thanks for sharing! > > I'm less optimistic about the chance of convincing politicians > in the West to support something like this. Fossil fuel companies > would probably oppose such a plan vociferously. For coal probably yes, for oil producers, probably yes. For big oil companies maybe not. Couple of years ago I talked to the guy who is head of strategic planning for ExxonMobile. Really cheap electrical power would be a godsend for them. They know how to combine electrolytic hydrogen and CO2 in the Fisher/Tropsch reaction to make synthetic oil. They could sell gasoline forever without worrying about pumping oil from unfriendly places. > The best chance > might be to persuade government people in a developing country > that has more to lose from climate change. It's too big for all but a few developing countries. > That's not to say it couldn't be done... look at the Chinese > government, investing far more in wind power than the United > States in spite of their dependence on coal. About a year and a half ago, the Chinese government proposed to jointly build power satellites with the Indians. How serious they are is hard to judge. > I wonder how much support could be gained from companies that > foresee a future in space tourism or asteroid mining? Not much would be my guess. In spite of the hype, space tourism is a hard business. Asteroid mining is even harder. http://htyp.org/Mining_Asteroids > Does the National Space Society have any plans to try to pitch > this to anybody? Not that I know about. What might be of interest to this group is science fiction stories written around power satellites. There are any number of stories that could be written around construction or diverting a propulsion laser for military use. There is also the mother of all disaster stories where the earth has become dependent on power satellites and the lot of them were knocked out by a gamma ray burst similar to the one that hit the earth in 774 or 775. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Ad Astra article
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsSzVYQ2Q0YUtCMERRczdYSXMtUWphUl92aHFN/edit?usp=sharing > > Working on a similar article for much higher circulation outlet. > > Keith Alright, now I'm feeling pretty hopeful about what power satellites can do for us. Thanks for sharing! I'm less optimistic about the chance of convincing politicians in the West to support something like this. Fossil fuel companies would porbably oppose such a plan vociferously. The best chance might be to persuade government people in a developing country that has more to lose from climate change. That's not to say it couldn't be done... look at the Chinese government, investing far more in wind power than the United States in spite of their dependence on coal. I wonder how much support could be gained from companies that foresee a future in space tourism or asteroid mining? Does the National Space Society have any plans to try to pitch this to anybody? ~E.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Gravitational Waves
2. Come close to disproving the cyclical (oscillating universe) and ekpyrotic (colliding branes) theories. Um... does this replace the colliding brains theory? When all else in the universe collapses, the only things left will be Bluebottle and Eccles. Who will immediately hit each other in the head. "Owww. me nut." "You dirty rotten swine, you" Hm... Shouldn't that be the Ecclrotic theory? "Never you mind what's under me nightshirt!" Bluebottle is famous for the absolute first string theory. "Without string, my trousers fall down." ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Introducing Myself
-Original Message- From: Ellen S. To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 11:38 am Subject: RE: Introducing Myself And then "Temptation" introduced a bunch more cliffhangers to the situation on Jijo, via the Buyur. I think the Buyur will prevent the Jophur from winning, but I doubt they have any incentive to prevent the destruction of any part of the Commons civilization. Oh... What if the Commons defeat the Jophur by using Buyur technology? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Introducing Myself
And then "Temptation" introduced a bunch more cliffhangers to the situation on Jijo, via the Buyur. I think the Buyur will prevent the Jophur from winning, but I doubt they have any incentive to prevent the destruction of any part of the Commons civilization. ~E.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Introducing Myself
> From: albm...@centroin.com.br > William Taylor wrote: >> >> The 4th dimension is going to close down as the galaxy that Jijo is in >> breaks away from the other four galaxies. >> > It also mean that all the "magic" will go out from Jijo. Everything > that can't be explained by XX-cent technology will cease to work. > > No more psychic powers either. > > Some of the lifeforms will go extinct. Some sentient beings that rely > on "magic" will go crazy. > I didn't remember that! Is it explained why in Heaven's Reach? It sounds like a really strange result of the hyperspace levels temporarily breaking down. Other than FTL travel, what relies on hyperspace? ~E.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Introducing Myself
William Taylor wrote: > > The 4th dimension is going to close down as the galaxy that Jijo is in > breaks away from the other four galaxies. > It also mean that all the "magic" will go out from Jijo. Everything that can't be explained by XX-cent technology will cease to work. No more psychic powers either. Some of the lifeforms will go extinct. Some sentient beings that rely on "magic" will go crazy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Introducing Myself
Wouldn't that be nice! Heaven's Reach ended on gigantic cliffhangers, such as WILL HUMANITY GO EXTICT!? :p Heaven's Reach ended with a giant rocket made of boo lifting off of Jijo. A long time had passed since Streaker had left. The cliffhangers of Jijo: The Jophur were in control the Great Library. How do you get rid of them without destroying the books? The Great Library is NOT the largest collection of books on Jijo. The Rothen ship inside of the time goop has a Library unit. The Uplift Library units store memory in the 4th dimension. The 4th dimension is going to close down as the galaxy that Jijo is in breaks away from the other four galaxies. How do you get into the Rothen ship, get access to the Library unit, and download as much data onto Jijo compatible data storage devices as possible before the Great Split occurs? ...and: How does one build and launch a rocket ship made from boo? Those are the cliffhangers I know. Vilyehm ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Introducing Myself
That would be me. Don't know why I didn't see any notices about the held mail until the other day. Odd. Nick "Ellen S." wrote:AT LAST my messages from like 6 months ago when I joined the mailing list have materialized. Though I do wonder what took so long. I see references to messages that I know I have not gotten, so I think there's also something preventing my address from receiving some messages from this list. Who is the list manager? > Hello. There are plenty of real names and plenty of ‘nyms > here, so don’t be shy either way. “ES” or “zoon33” both > seem reasonable enough - as long as you’re consistent or > let the rest of us know your wishes who are we to argue? Hello! I hope my real name isn't showing! I cannot find any controls to make the email service stop doing that. I will go with E.S. for now. > It’s been quiet recently but every now and again this place > sputters into life… I doubt it’ll ever reach the volumes of > The Old Days again (unless DB WRITES MORE UPLIFT BOOKS…) but > there’s always room for discussion. Wouldn't that be nice! Heaven's Reach ended on gigantic cliffhangers, such as WILL HUMANITY GO EXTICT!? :p > At one point, there was "Between a Grok and a Hard Pace" on the net. > My fanfic set 100 years before Brightness Reef. A Qheuen challenges > a G'Kek to a downhill race--and wins. Then for the sake of continued > peace, it's all hushed up. > > Only worth being a fanfic when written. > > Vilyehm I think I read that once... the qheuen attached itself to a section of boo and used it as a giant wheel, right? ~E.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Introducing Myself
AT LAST my messages from like 6 months ago when I joined the mailing list have materialized. Though I do wonder what took so long. I see references to messages that I know I have not gotten, so I think there's also something preventing my address from receiving some messages from this list. Who is the list manager? > Hello. There are plenty of real names and plenty of ‘nyms > here, so don’t be shy either way. “ES” or “zoon33” both > seem reasonable enough - as long as you’re consistent or > let the rest of us know your wishes who are we to argue? Hello! I hope my real name isn't showing! I cannot find any controls to make the email service stop doing that. I will go with E.S. for now. > It’s been quiet recently but every now and again this place > sputters into life… I doubt it’ll ever reach the volumes of > The Old Days again (unless DB WRITES MORE UPLIFT BOOKS…) but > there’s always room for discussion. Wouldn't that be nice! Heaven's Reach ended on gigantic cliffhangers, such as WILL HUMANITY GO EXTICT!? :p > At one point, there was "Between a Grok and a Hard Pace" on the net. > My fanfic set 100 years before Brightness Reef. A Qheuen challenges > a G'Kek to a downhill race--and wins. Then for the sake of continued > peace, it's all hushed up. > > Only worth being a fanfic when written. > > Vilyehm I think I read that once... the qheuen attached itself to a section of boo and used it as a giant wheel, right? ~E.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Uplift questions
> Spoiler warning to anyone who hasn't read Heaven's > Reach!! > And that's Alvin, Mudfoot, and Huck on Harathrurptra. > (Correct spelling anyone?) > Mudfoot can become VERY important if Harathrumta (Sp?) > has Rousit. In what way? By influencing Rousit in some way to be friendly to Clan Tymbrimi than their patrons are? I wouldn't hire Tytlal for my PR campaign, that's for sure. > Does anybody remember the Rousit? > > Contacting Aliens didn't. > > (The above is subject, of course, to Dr. Brin actually > making the Rousit clients of the Hoon. It wasn't that > clear in Heaven's Reach.) Buh wait, that isn't canon? I assumed they were confirmed Hoon clients. > 2. Did we ever find out why Gillian wanted a herd of > Glavers? > > They speak to hydrogen breathers, IIRC. Reading Contacting Aliens cleared that one up for me. Though I don't recall any glavers sitting in on her interview with the Transcendent being... then again maybe a few were sitting in a corner wordlessly chewing their cud or whatever glavers do. > (It > would also have made it possible for Dwer to take a > few back to Jijo, but I doubt David Brin would make > things so narratively "easy" for Jijo.) Oops, that comment of mine was about red rings, not glavers. But seriously, you'd think Lark would remember Asx's request to take the original red ring to the Sages, and try to get somebody to take some. > And Alvin could use the bio-life preservers in > his sailing business. Ahah yeah! Hoon can't swim so they might find those traeki scuba-gear rings handy. But then traeki were basically written as biological Swiss-army-knives for nearly every need... to the extent of producing the enzymes that make it possible for humans and maybe others to exist on Jijo without dying of malnutrition. It makes me wonder how the Path of Redemption folks plan on replacing that function once traeki are mindless dirt-eaters. ~E.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power satellites was "and the rest of you"
At 12:04 Tuesday 04-03-14, Keith Henson wrote: [...] Time to displace fossil fuels is a bit over two decades from the start. Will probably take at least that long before second- and third-hand "used" electric vehicles get cheap enough for those who today cannot afford anything newer than that in a gasoline-powered vehicle to start being able to afford to replace their current vehicles that they have to have to get to work, school, the grocery store, the doctor, etc. It's also highly unlikely that things will change enough any sooner than that in most places in the US and elsewhere outside of a few densely-packed urban centers like NYC for most people to be able to do without individual powered transportation for those necessary trips: IOW, most places I've lived the bus or other public transportation is only good for going downtown in the morning and coming back in the evening after "regular business hours," and not even that from many places where people live, and most people have too far to go or have disabilities or other health conditions which would prevent them from walking or riding a bicycle to/from work, even when it's not raining or other inclement weather, or their job requires them to arrive in a suit or other specified attire, looking and smelling fresh, and stay that way all day, and the business doesn't have and probably has no place to install locker rooms with showers. Then there are the ones who have to carry tools or samples or other bulky items with them, and pretty much everyone who has to bring groceries home or take kids to the doctor or multiple kids to multiple schools, music lessons, soccer practice, etc. . . . . . . ronn! :) An Active List Again? Maru ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Domain Hierarchy
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:22 AM, trent shipley wrote: > I once read a quote that went something like, "No action against > climate change has ever been taken that resulted in material economic > injury to those who took the action." > > This lead me to think that despite the knowledge about climate change > at a physical level, humans make decisions based on the domains (not > the sciences) of psychology, economics, and politics. > > Climate change then, is not a hard science problem, it is an economic > and political problem. The solution can't be had through privation, > no matter how much scientists say extreme conservation may be > necessary, but has to involve a path through shared prosperity. Oh my, do I agree with you! After considering the problems since 1975, I think there is a solution based on new technology. Some of the new technology, the Skylon rocket plane, has hundreds of millions ($) committed to it. I referenced it in a previous posting today on this list. > The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that > one science is more important than another, the discursive domains > indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or > derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. > > Society > Politics > Economics > Psychology > Biology > Chemistry > Physics That's a good list. I think the first four are emergent from evolutionary psychology. That in turn is based on evolutionary biology, which is emergent from chemistry and physics. > (Everything is, of course, mediated by psychology, but leaving that > aside.) As you go down the scale knowledge becomes more precise and > attainable, but relevance to daily experience lessens. As you go up > the scale, the ramified complexity of the domain makes knowledge > imprecise, but the lived relevance is high. This explains the > frustration of natural scientists who find good science rendered > irrelevant in the face of psychology,economics, politics, and society. That's well stated. And then there are the engineers (like me) who just want to solve the damned problems. It's just an economic/engineering problem to get the cost of renewable energy down. It's not like the sun doesn't put out enough energy. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Introducing Myself
-Original Message- From: Charlie Bell To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 6:22 am Subject: Re: Introducing Myself I doubt it’ll ever reach the volumes of The Old Days again (unless DB WRITES MORE UPLIFT BOOKS…) but there’s always room for discussion. Cheers,Charlie. At one point, there was "Between a Grok and a Hard Pace" on the net. My fanfic set 100 years beforeBrightness Reef. A Qheuen challenges a G'Kek to a downhill race--and wins. Then for the sake of continued peace, it's all hushed up. Only worth being a fanfic when written. Vilyehm ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Introducing Myself
On 13 May 2013, at 5:42 am, E. S. wrote: > > > Also I don't have a screenname picked out for this list. I try > not to share my real name online. Hello. There are plenty of real names and plenty of ‘nyms here, so don’t be shy either way. “ES” or “zoon33” both seem reasonable enough - as long as you’re consistent or let the rest of us know your wishes who are we to argue? It’s been quiet recently but every now and again this place sputters into life… I doubt it’ll ever reach the volumes of The Old Days again (unless DB WRITES MORE UPLIFT BOOKS…) but there’s always room for discussion. Cheers, Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Domain Hierarchy
I have a degree in Mathematics. I consider it more of an art than a science. Math is a linguistic game that fortuitously has practical applications. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:44 PM, David Hobby wrote: > On 3/3/2014 10:37 PM, trent shipley wrote: >> >> ... >> >> The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that >> one science is more important than another, the discursive domains >> indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or >> derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. >> >> Society >> Politics >> Economics >> Psychology >> Biology >> Chemistry >> Physics >> > > Trent-- > > You left out Mathematics? > http://xkcd.com/435/ > > ---David > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Domain Hierarchy
On 3/3/2014 10:37 PM, trent shipley wrote: ... The second thing it made me think is that while it cannot be said that one science is more important than another, the discursive domains indexed by sciences can be ranked as more or less foundational or derived, or more pejoratively as reductionist or ramified. Society Politics Economics Psychology Biology Chemistry Physics Trent-- You left out Mathematics? http://xkcd.com/435/ ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re:
I just picked up KSR's 2312 and Jack Campbell's The Lost Stars: Tarnished Knights (sequel series to the Lost Fleet series). Haven't started reading them. I was re-reading Sword of Shanarra as MTV is threatening a new series al a Game of Thrones. It's turning into a slog (seemed much better when I was a kid!) Damon. On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Yea, what's the deal? Anyone home? Anyone read anything > good/interesting? I recently listened to For Whom the Bell Tolls and am > now listening to a book called The Mongoliad, Greg Bear being one of > several co-authors. The Hemingway was very stark and depressing and a bit > obsessed with death but very good all the same. The Bear (et al) is an > action packed thriller set during the Mongolian invasion of Europe. I'm > also reading Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Ann Jacobs > which is interesting and a bit of an eye opener. > > Doug > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > >> Hi Debbi, >> >> I don't think you've been deleted. But we've been real quiet. >> >> Dan M. >> >> >> ___ >> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com >> >> > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Uplift questions
Bluehost is el cheapo, yet reasonably reliable, web hosting. Nick On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:07 AM, William Taylor wrote: > > Well, since I have joined this mailing list I can ask > some questions that I've wondered about. I haven't > read Heaven's Reach in a while, but I don't remember > the book answering these questions. Maybe some list > members might know. > > > > Spoiler warning to anyone who hasn't read Heaven's > Reach!! > > > > > > > > 1. When Gillian traded things with Uriel, did she take > any rewqs? They'd be very valuable both for Earthclan > and for that colony Alvin and Huck moved to. > > > > You ask a` question that would most likely be answered > > by our good Dr. Brin with, "Of course they did--just > > as soon as I write in the need for them in a later story." > > > > It ain't always completely thought out beforehand. > > Authors do get surprised by their own future plot twists. > > > > And that's > > Alvin, Mudfoot, and Huck on Harathrurptra. > > (Correct spelling anyone?) > > Mudfoot can become VERY important if Harathrumta (Sp?) > > has Rousit. > > Does anybody remember the Rousit? > > Contacting Aliens didn't. > > (The above is subject, of course, to Dr. Brin actually > > making the Rousit clients of the Hoon. It wasn't that > > clear in Heaven's Reach.) > > > > 2. Did we ever find out why Gillian wanted a herd of > Glavers? > > They speak to hydrogen breathers, IIRC. > > > > I doubt they're legally available for uplift > yet, (RE-Uplift, as they're on the downward slope.) > > but Contacting Aliens does say they haven't been > spotted (in the other Galaxy 2) in 2000 years. Did she > figure they might be the last of their kind, and want > to prevent the Jophur from killing them all? (It > would also have made it possible for Dwer to take a > few back to Jijo, but I doubt David Brin would make > things so narratively "easy" for Jijo.) > > 3. When Streaker and Polkjhy exchanged people and > chunks of hull, did Lark and Ling give any of the red > rings to Gillian? Those things are a potent biological > weapon against Jophur, even if used only as a > defensive measure. > > And Alvin could use the bio-life preservers in > > his sailing business. > > > 4. Lark saw an Urs on Polkjhy, stuck in an air bubble. > Why would any Urs accept such a watery/confined fate? > > Better than having some er pop the bubble? > > > She'll be stuck in that little bubble for the rest of > her life. Why didn't she go onto the Streaker while > all those Dolphins were going onto Polkjhy? > > > > ~A new person without a screen-name > ___http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > > Bluehost? > > OK, any name but Smurfette. > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Uplift questions
Well, since I have joined this mailing list I can ask some questions that I've wondered about. I haven't read Heaven's Reach in a while, but I don't remember the book answering these questions. Maybe some list members might know. Spoiler warning to anyone who hasn't read Heaven's Reach!! 1. When Gillian traded things with Uriel, did she take any rewqs? They'd be very valuable both for Earthclan and for that colony Alvin and Huck moved to. You ask a` question that would most likely be answered by our good Dr. Brin with, "Of course they did--just as soon as I write in the need for them in a later story." It ain't always completely thought out beforehand. Authors do get surprised by their own future plot twists. And that's Alvin, Mudfoot, and Huck on Harathrurptra. (Correct spelling anyone?) Mudfoot can become VERY important if Harathrumta (Sp?) has Rousit. Does anybody remember the Rousit? Contacting Aliens didn't. (The above is subject, of course, to Dr. Brin actually making the Rousit clients of the Hoon. It wasn't that clear in Heaven's Reach.) 2. Did we ever find out why Gillian wanted a herd of Glavers? They speak to hydrogen breathers, IIRC. I doubt they're legally available for uplift yet, (RE-Uplift, as they're on the downward slope.) but Contacting Aliens does say they haven't been spotted (in the other Galaxy 2) in 2000 years. Did she figure they might be the last of their kind, and want to prevent the Jophur from killing them all? (It would also have made it possible for Dwer to take a few back to Jijo, but I doubt David Brin would make things so narratively "easy" for Jijo.) 3. When Streaker and Polkjhy exchanged people and chunks of hull, did Lark and Ling give any of the red rings to Gillian? Those things are a potent biological weapon against Jophur, even if used only as a defensive measure. And Alvin could use the bio-life preservers in his sailing business. 4. Lark saw an Urs on Polkjhy, stuck in an air bubble. Why would any Urs accept such a watery/confined fate? Better than having some er pop the bubble? She'll be stuck in that little bubble for the rest of her life. Why didn't she go onto the Streaker while all those Dolphins were going onto Polkjhy? ~A new person without a screen-name ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Bluehost? OK, any name but Smurfette. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
Solar and wind energy on Earth certainly are economically viable, far more than the costs and damages we'll have to pay for massive climate change. Fossil fuels are "cheap" right now only because the costs (military action, increased pollution and disease and medical costs, climate change, wildfires, crop losses) are paid for through circuitous routes, or are not being paid yet (read: borrowed/stolen from future generations), or the costs and damages are forced onto disenfranchised people in poor countries who have no recourse to the people making these decisions. We literally can't afford to keep paying for that crap. Solar energy beamed down from outer space? I don't know anything about that. ~Ellen > Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:40:15 -0300 > Subject: Re: For David Brin and the rest of you > > Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably > ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth > getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? > Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the > most radical ecogroups. > > Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) > > ___ > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Stephen Hawking: "There are no black holes"
So if this is correct, what is the difference between a black hole and a naked singularity? The article describes an event horizon shrinking or growing in relation to a black hole's apparent horizon, but isn't Hawking saying that the apparent horizon is real and the event horizon just doesn't exist? In which case how can a black hole have both? ~Ellen > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:28:28 -0600 > Subject: Stephen Hawking: "There are no black holes" > > Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is > incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims. > > http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re:
Yea, what's the deal? Anyone home? Anyone read anything good/interesting? I recently listened to For Whom the Bell Tolls and am now listening to a book called The Mongoliad, Greg Bear being one of several co-authors. The Hemingway was very stark and depressing and a bit obsessed with death but very good all the same. The Bear (et al) is an action packed thriller set during the Mongolian invasion of Europe. I'm also reading Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Ann Jacobs which is interesting and a bit of an eye opener. Doug On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > Hi Debbi, > > I don't think you've been deleted. But we've been real quiet. > > Dan M. > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
Actually, bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build. Doug GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: History lessons not learned?
www.tscherimSoobzokov.com provides the actual truth. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Scam?
I got a copy of this email from Jon Louis too. I doubt he would turn to Brin-L for a time-sensitive loan request. Well, for that matter, *any* loan request, much less one that must be fulfilled in a few hours. -- Matt From: Keith Henson To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 11:19 AM Subject: Scam? Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 03:46:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Louis Mann To: undisclosed recipients: ; Subject: Help & a favor (Jon Louis Mann) I have seen perhaps 5 or 6 of these in the last year. Looks to me as if Jon lost control of his email account. Anyone actually know? Keith Henson Hello, I am sorry for reaching you rather too late due to the situation of things right now. My family and I had a trip visiting (Manila,Philippines), everything was going on fine until last night when we got attacked by some unknown ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: "Dan Minette" >At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. >How badly do you want to see this demo? > I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. Dan the idea that made the economics look good happened in _April_. Took a couple of months to work out the consequences and fit the idea into the economic model and get a reading that it cut the startup cost from $140 B to about $60 B. So the very existence of the concept as perhaps economically viable is _3_ months old. It has not been vetted, though the basic physics of the $140 B version passed peer review and should be published sometime in the next year. Nobody is going to build a 400 KW laser in three months. However, there does exist a 105 kW CW laser and for testing you could use a gyrotron mm wave generator that come up a MW or so. I can make a case that the demo was done 2000 years ago. Of course, if I had anything to do with such testing, you would not be hearing from me. The point is that it looks like there is a solution to the energy/carbon/climate that will provide really cheap energy for as long as the sun functions. Will we do anything with it? Probably not. Will any other country, perhaps. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On Sep 6, 2013, at 12:37 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO chided: > Dan Minette thread-killed: >> >> I don't expect to see it, ever. I can see Alberto taking issue with this statement, except that it's just Dan stating his expectation. Are we to judge what Dan expects? >> But, that demo is an example of the very >> easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The >> fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of >> where the project is. >> > This is not fair-play! :-) It's totally fair play: With all due respect to Keith, his answer to Dan's question implied that if Dan wanted to see the thing demonstrated, he'd better be ready to pony up the $4M. But regardless of how completely world-changing it may be to beam energy from geosynchronous orbit some day, there will definitely need to be numerous, costly "baby steps" demos. Does anyone think that SpaceX and Virgin Galactic and XCOR and the like bypassed testing and just built ships and launched 'em? Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
>At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. >How badly do you want to see this demo? I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
managing the list at brin-l-ow...@mccmedia.com From: David Hobby >On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the >> whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing >> weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by >> the Chinese. Keith Henson _ > Now that's a problem with the plan. > If the lasers could be weapons controlled by one country, I can see other countries upset enough to sabotage the whole project. There'd need to be a political solution that made it clear the lasers weren't going to be used as weapons by any group short of most of the UN Security Council. John Mankins, one of the big names in power satellite research, told me that the US would destroy a Chinese propulsion laser before it was turned on. Covertly. The head of the Chinese space agency talked to visiting Indians and proposed they jointly build power satellites. Would the US destroy an Indian/Chinese propulsion laser? From: "Dan Minette" > Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20 minutes 20 minutes is 1200 seconds. An object falling in a one g field would be attain a velocity of v=gt or 11760 m/s. Assuming 7.5 km/s exhaust velocity, the fuel mass to hover that long would be: 1-1/e^(11760/7500) or 79%. So you have a vehicle mass of 2.1 kg, with 7.9 kg of hydrogen The starting power for the laser would generate g x the mass of the vehicle, 98 N. Force being equal to ma where a is v/t for one second for the hydrogen. 98 N = mass per second x 7500 m/s solving for mass, about 13 gm/s Ke per second (i.e. watts) of the hydrogen is 1/2 m v^2 or 367,500 W, tapering off over the 20 minutes to 1/5th of that amount. At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. How badly do you want to see this demo? Keith > and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy feasability tests one would do at the start of any serious undertaking. That would be one of many things that would have to be sucessfully tested before the project would be deemed even possible. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
Dan Minette thread-killed: > > I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very > easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The > fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of > where the project is. > This is not fair-play! :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: Pat Mathews > How much does it cost in energy as well as in dollars? Substantial. I figured this for an elevator and got that the elevator had a 3 day payback for the parts and the same for lifting. The calculated energy investment for a kW of capacity was paid back in 53 days. Figured at 24 kWh/day, 1272 kWh. 94% of that is in the hydrogen used mostly for reaction mass. The startup scale project, 100 GW of new power plant per year takes a few LNG tankers a week to make the hydrogen > Cradle to grave? Mass in GEO is useful, so a worn out power sat would probably be fed into making new ones. > And is the initial investment within the capability of the United States > right now? (I know. $60B is peanuts. Even so -) or any corporation? There are several current energy projects, most of them LNG, that are in that range. Apple has $100 billion. If Steve Jobs were alive they might use it for this project, but without him, probably not. The most likely to do it are the Chinese, who certainly need the energy and a way to quit burning coal. How seriously to take this, I don't know. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/india/34877401_1_space-solar-power-space-collaboration-v-ponraj > What are the economics - in the terms mentioned above - of beaming solar > power down to earth? (Those of using it space are, of course, well > understood by now.) Space based solar power will under cut coal by half or it is not worth doing. > Over the past 7 decades, I've come to see the wisdom of getting a good, solid > cost accounting done before instituting any large scale project. If you want to go through the spreadsheet analyzing the project as a business, ask for it. > Anyway, subject to that sort of analysis, it does sound good indeed. Now all it needs is people. From: ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO > Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. They were not economically viable before April. Now they might be. But let's put numbers on your concerns. G. Harry Stine put a maximum capacity for power sats in GEO at 177 TW. I don't know exactly how he did it, I get similar but smaller numbers around 120 TW. Because the energy is higher grade than heat, 12 TW would probably be enough to replace fossil fuel use.. The Earth receives 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation of which 70% is absorbed by clouds, oceans and land masses, about 122 PW. So the amount of energy added to the earth by 12 TW of power satellites is around 1 part in ten thousand. But wait, there is more. If you have this kind of industrial base in space, sunshades in L! are fully possible. How cold do you want? Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) As an oil company guy, you might start thinking about what can be done with oceans of cheap power. There are things that hydrocarbons can do that just can't be electrified at reasonable cost. If you go through the chemistry and energy economics, synthetic carbon neutral gasoline can be made for about a dollar a gallon if the cost of power gets down into the 1-2 cent range. I know ExxonMobile is thinking about it. From: Pat Mathews >And of course, anything that can be that easily weaponized, will be. Remember >Heinlein's Loonies winning their independence by throwing rocks at the mother >world? It's really hard to weaponize the microwave transmission link. Microwave optics just will not let you focus it tight enough to be particularly dangerous. The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by the Chinese. Keith Henson ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
>It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in the UK and big propulsion lasers will get the >cost to under $100/kg to GEO. Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20 minutes and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy feasability tests one would do at the start of any serious undertaking. That would be one of many things that would have to be sucessfully tested before the project would be deemed even possible. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote: The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by the Chinese. Keith Henson _ Now that's a problem with the plan. If the lasers could be weapons controlled by one country, I can see other countries upset enough to sabotage the whole project. There'd need to be a political solution that made it clear the lasers weren't going to be used as weapons by any group short of most of the UN Security Council. ---David Zeus' lightning bolt, Maru ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
In a message dated 9/5/2013 4:24:09 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, albm...@centroin.com.br writes: where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar energy? It's not in orbit; it's in London melting parked cars. Google: London building melting cars. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On 9/5/2013 7:24 AM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote: David Hobby wrote: Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency... it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not, Earth gets cooked. Alberto-- Sorry, I don't understand how getting energy from space is inherently worse than getting energy by burning stuff that's been sitting in the ground for millions of years. Either way, it's "extra" energy. Plus, burning carbon compounds from the ground adds to the greenhouse effect, which just beaming power down would not. There may be good arguments for conserving more rather than having cheap clean power from space, but yours isn't one. ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:24:00 -0300 > Subject: Re: For David Brin and the rest of you > From: albm...@centroin.com.br > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > > David Hobby wrote: > > > > Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing > > much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? > > > No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency... > it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not, Earth gets > cooked. > > Hell on Earth, the nightmare of science fiction, brought to us by > those that try to save the planet. Isn't this the scenario of some > cheap sci-fi, where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by > placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar > energy? > > Just we don't need mirror or lens, place a lot of death ray > satellites. Sorry, power satellites. > > Alberto Monteiro > And of course, anything that can be that easily weaponized, will be. Remember Heinlein's Loonies winning their independence by throwing rocks at the mother world? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
David Hobby wrote: > > Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing > much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? > No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency... it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not, Earth gets cooked. Hell on Earth, the nightmare of science fiction, brought to us by those that try to save the planet. Isn't this the scenario of some cheap sci-fi, where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar energy? Just we don't need mirror or lens, place a lot of death ray satellites. Sorry, power satellites. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
On 9/4/2013 4:40 PM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote: Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) Alberto-- I'd argue that if people are going to be using all the energy anyway, they might as well be doing it without adding to the greenhouse effect. Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly? ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
Even if these things were economically viable (which they probably ain't), ambientally it would be a disaster. I can't image the Earth getting such extra amount of radiant energy and not turning it (she? Gaia?) into a hell much worse than the most pessimistic images of the most radical ecogroups. Alberto Monteiro (oil company guy) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:10:33 -0700 > Subject: For David Brin and the rest of you > From: hkeithhen...@gmail.com > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > > As of last April, there seems to be a solution to the > energy/carbon/climate problems, even water. Relatively cheap, less > than ten dollars a person. > > It's long been understood that solar power from space gets around the > limitations on the Earth. The problem has always been the high cost > of lifting solar power satellite parts to GEO. > > It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in > the UK and big propulsion lasers will get the cost to under $100/kg to > GEO. Due to a clever idea by Steve Nixon, investment cost could be > around $60 B, the break even point from selling power satellite around > 8 years, and the ten year return on investment 500%. The cost of > electric power from space would rapidly fall to 2 cents per kWh or > less. That's cheap enough to make synthetic gasoline from CO2 out of > the air for a dollar a gallon. Energy this cheap will allow sea water > to be turned into fresh at low cost and permit recycling just about > everything. > > $60 B is smaller than a number of exiting energy project, and only > twice what the Chinese spent to build Three Gorges dam. > > Eye candy: Laser powered Skylon near the end of acceleration to LEO on > hydrogen heated by 3 GW of lasers located in GEO > > http://www.htyp.org/File:SkylonLaser.jpg > How much does it cost in energy as well as in dollars? Cradle to grave? And is the initial investment within the capability of the United States right now? (I know. $60B is peanuts. Even so -) or any corporation? What are the economics - in the terms mentioned above - of beaming solar power down to earth? (Those of using it space are, of course, well understood by now.) Over the past 7 decades, I've come to see the wisdom of getting a good, solid cost accounting done before instituting any large scale project. Anyway, subject to that sort of analysis, it does sound good indeed. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Multi-talented
On Aug 29, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: > Maybe, but he would have had to change his name from David to Sergei. I know we're all very impressed with Dr. Brin, but this whole incident highlights *two* failures in his life. One, of course, is the seedy business of the alleged affair. The second, lesser-known, is his failed attempt to go into hiding by changing his name from "Sergey" to "David". This paper-thin subterfuge has served him poorly, and we all may mock him. Briefly. David (No, not Sergey) Land ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Multi-talented
It's Sergey, actually. Nick (from the Googleplex-almost) On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >>I never knew the good doctor founded google until I read it in Yahoo news > as > >>part of a scandel. > > >Maybe, but he would have had to change his name from David to Sergei. > > Didn't you know, David translated into Russian is Sergei, I knew a Sergei > from Russia. He used Sergei when founding Google to have a cosmopolitan > flair. :-) > > Dan M. > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Multi-talented
>>I never knew the good doctor founded google until I read it in Yahoo news as >>part of a scandel. >Maybe, but he would have had to change his name from David to Sergei. Didn't you know, David translated into Russian is Sergei, I knew a Sergei from Russia. He used Sergei when founding Google to have a cosmopolitan flair. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Multi-talented
Maybe, but he would have had to change his name from David to Sergei. From: Dan Minette To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:46 PM Subject: Multi-talented I never knew the good doctor founded google until I read it in Yahoo news as part of a scandel. Alleged Affair of Google Co-Founder Brin Raises Ethical Issues Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Heaven's Reach
1. When Gillian traded things with Uriel, did she takeany rewqs? They'd be very valuable both for Earthclanand for that Hoon colony Alvin and Huck moved to. Not mentioned. Could go either way if our good Dr. has anything planned. And you forgot to mention Mudfoot. (Then again, Contacting Aliens forgot to mention the Rousit.) 2. Did we ever find out why Gillian wanted a herd ofGlavers? I doubt they're legally available for upliftyet, but Contacting Aliens does say they haven't beenspotted (in the other Galaxies) in 2000 years. Did shefigure they might be the last of their kind, and wantto prevent the Jophur from killing them all? IIRC, Glavers still had a knack for talking to hydrogen breathers. 3. When Streaker and Polkjhy exchanged people andchunks of hull, did Lark and Ling give any of the redrings to Gillian? Those rings are a potent biologicaldefense against Jophur invasions, so it'd be nice forEarthclan to have some.(It would hypothetically also have made it possible forDwer to take a few back to Jijo, but I doubt David Brinwould make things so narratively "easy" for Jijo.) This I know: The red rings are not being used for the retaking of the Jijo Library. And the Jijo Library is not the biggest souce of books on Jijo. That's the Rothen ship--at least until the 4th dimention closes down. 4. Lark saw an Urs on Polkjhy, stuck in an air bubble. Why would any Urs accept such a watery/confined fate? She'll be stuck in that little bubble for the rest ofher life. Why didn't she go onto the Streaker while allthose Dolphins were going onto Polkjhy? Unknown. Urs is not to reason why. Vilyehm ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On quiet
On 3/14/2013 2:05 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Hi, Nick I'd like to get back on the?list, please. I think I've been deleted?? (been inactive for a long time!). Thanks, Debbi Hi Debbi, I don't think you've been deleted. But we've been real quiet. Dan M. Brin's website and Facebook page (watchout for trolls) are vey active, though. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com He also posts regularly to Google+ Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE:
Hi Debbi, I don't think you've been deleted. But we've been real quiet. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Chinese ham handedness and monopolies
On 12/4/2012 9:02 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I sent this to a single person instead of the list due to Killer B being changed (probably automatically) from the sender to a cc. I think this happened a couple of other times. I've gotten replies, but will not post them, because they aren't my emails. But if the sender would, or would give me permission to, that would be great. In reply to Kevin, I wrote: The Chinese were extremely ham-handed about this. In particular, their stoppage of rare earth shipments in response to an incident involving their extrodinary claims to ocean territory (basically any territory claims of the Chinese over the last 1000 years are considered valid and enforceable by the the Chinese government) generated strong reaction. Given the fact that consumers rightfully believed that the Chinese were untrustworthy suppliers, as well as expensive ones, it was reasonable for them to sacrifice a little performance to switch to a more reliable and cheaper supply. The Chinese overplayed their hand, as they have overall the last year. And if the Chinese try to raise further, it only creates more incentives to look into alternatives. I think this may be one of the reasons why the Club of Rome predictions failed (there are clearly numerous reasons). As an economist named Hotelling pointed out early in the 20th century, there are good reasons in economics to expect the prices of non-renewable resources to rise over time at approximately the same rate as the interest rate. (I'm just giving a simplified explanation here, see the Journal article if you really like this sort of thing.) But any time a resource has rising prices it creates incentives to look for substitutes, and the higher the price, the higher the incentive. So a lot of products are no longer made with steel, but with plastics or composites, for instance. The other price obviously is to stimulate the search for new sources of supply. Put those together and you can see why those predictions of disaster have not materialized. By similar reasoning, any attempt to monopolize a resource or product can only succeed if there is some way of preventing and competitor from entering the market. Most commonly this requires government action to create and sustain the monopoly. Since that will not happen in the case of rare earth elements, I doubt there can be a lasting monopoly problem here. In a similar way, recall how the oil prices hikes of the 70s turned into the price collapse of the 1980s as both fuel efficiency and increased exploration responded ot the market price signals. They can probably drive Western companies out of the solar cell business. Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits this. They may very well increase prices after becoming a near monopoly, but the alternatives are oil and gas and coal and wind. And, for certain remote applications, solar power actually works best. Well, they can drive them out, perhaps, but can they keep them out? One of two things seems likely: 1. China creates a temporary monopoly, then tries to raise prices to profit from it. See above for how market forces respond. 2. China creates a monopoly, then subsidizes solar panel producers permanently to maintain that monopoly. And permanently low prices for solar panels cause terrible devastation to the U.S. economy...Wait, that doesn't quite make sense. I think I rather like low prices for solar panels. And this could create a boom in low-cost, non-polluting energy which only benefits us. So, I'm guessing that it will not be the big win they see. But, they are caught at a GDP level where Huntington has pointed out that totalitarian goverments begin to get pushed by the growing middle class. Their reaction is to clamp down harderespecially with the new leadership, where all the leaders are both well filtered and the result of nepotism. It is a dangerous mixture. Putting this together with their demographic window of opportunity (the 1-child policy has a big demographic bubble that will be old in 20 years), a surplus of males, and one has a classic situation where countries become aggressive. OK, this is where my "economist" hat no longer gives me any particular aid. I will say that indeed it will get interesting, but the factor that is most likely to cause aggression on a large scale is water. That is in short supply, unless we can access abundant cheap energy to desalinate ocean water to make potable water. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Chinese ham handedness and monopolies
Hi, >> Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their >> currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits >> this. Well, selling products at prices below below production cost and (aggressive) disdaining of IP right of other countries has happened before. So. China is imitating the past strategies of the western countries. So what? Some disturbing thoughts remain, though. We in Germany pay high fuel taxes and are told to drive fuel-efficient and clean vehicles. OTOH, Volkswagen still produces 1980s models in China. This way, we take care that not are responsible for pollution and excessive oil consumption, but the Chinese. Hooray? - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Chinese ham handedness and monopolies
I sent this to a single person instead of the list due to Killer B being changed (probably automatically) from the sender to a cc. I think this happened a couple of other times. I've gotten replies, but will not post them, because they aren't my emails. But if the sender would, or would give me permission to, that would be great. In reply to Kevin, I wrote: > The Chinese were extremely ham-handed about this. In particular, > their stoppage of rare earth shipments in response to an incident > involving their extrodinary claims to ocean territory (basically any > territory claims of the Chinese over the last 1000 years are > considered valid and enforceable by the the Chinese government) > generated strong reaction. Given the fact that consumers rightfully > believed that the Chinese were untrustworthy suppliers, as well as > expensive ones, it was reasonable for them to sacrifice a little > performance to switch to a more reliable and cheaper supply. The Chinese overplayed their hand, as they have overall the last year. > > They can probably drive Western companies out of the solar cell business. > Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their > currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits > this. They may very well increase prices after becoming a near > monopoly, but the alternatives are oil and gas and coal and wind. > And, for certain remote applications, solar power actually works best. > > So, I'm guessing that it will not be the big win they see. But, they > are caught at a GDP level where Huntington has pointed out that > totalitarian goverments begin to get pushed by the growing middle > class. Their reaction is to clamp down harderespecially with the > new leadership, where all the leaders are both well filtered and the > result of nepotism. It is a dangerous mixture. Putting this together > with their demographic window of opportunity (the 1-child policy has a > big demographic bubble that will be old in 20 years), a surplus of > males, and one has a classic situation where countries become aggressive. > > We will be living in interesting times. > > Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
>That's not how slow poison works. People don't die for smoking a cigarette, or for smoking 100 >cigarettes a day for 30 years. But then they die in the 31st year. The difference, of course, is that there were a large number of symtoms, very statistically significant differences in longevity, etc. with cigarette smoking. Even with simple studies, it was easy to see. With DDT, much more sophisticated studies were done. It's impossible to prove that no-one is hurt by exposore to DDT, Roundup, etc. But, Roundup has been subjected to the tumor prone mice study. What hasn't, is natural supplements. It is likely that there are dangerous things sold in health food stores that we could check for, but by law they are not checked because they are natural. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Klaus Stock wrote: > > Nope. In Germany, political reasons are the real reasons, not common > sense. > The europeans are crazy. They don't know what to do, they add a lot of uncertainty to the economy with all those subsidies that come and go, taxes that come and go, and regulations that come and go. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
Dan Minette wrote: > > The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it, > I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and > the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small > amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad, > wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal > life in the area, etc? > That's not how slow poison works. People don't die for smoking a cigarette, or for smoking 100 cigarettes a day for 30 years. But then they die in the 31st year. Alberto Monteiro PS: is bringing "cigarettes" to the discussion like bringing Hitler? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 12/1/2012 6:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote: How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not populareven going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much for Obama to propose. I am assuming that at some point we have enough "Sandy's" to tip the balance. That will come much later than it should have come, but I think it will come at some point. IF you don't think that will ever happen, just adjust your forecasts accordingly. BTW, carbon taxes are an economically efficient way of reducing emissions, which means that if you need to reduce emissions this does it with the least negative effect on the economy. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" wrote: (Keith) > >>If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to > yourself. > > I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance > of suceeeding. > >>Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of > working on power satellites >>and laser propulsion. > > I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix. I make a case that going to laser propulsion and power sats would get humanity off fossil fuels in 20 years. Do you consider that a quick fix? But, > we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years > now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a > plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run. snip I notice you don't put either a cost per kWh or a capital investment on any of these tired proposals, Nuclear is both expensive and slow (even in China) to install. There are also scaling problems. If you are going to get off fossil fuel, do you really want to build 15,000 1 GW reactors? If we are going to make a good choice, we need to cite the numbers. I have analyzed the cost of this new idea to build power satellites with laser propulsion. I get $1600 per kW and 2 cents per kWh based on 6.8% discount rate. The cost information for other forms is easy to find. Offer stands, but you are going to have to cite defensible numbers to get me to switch my efforts to your concept of how to solve the problem. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
>>Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to > keep the price up, >>surplus is destroyed. > I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the > Great Depression, when prices were so low during the deflationary era that > it wasn't worth the cost of bringing them to market. Since then, farmers > have been paid to leave land fallow. Lately, it's been much better. > Farmers are paid to plant land with the greatest risk for erosion with > grasses that are superior for soil retention. That's one reason why, on US > farms, topsoil is increasing. Yup, I checked, right. In the EU the overproduction problem had been solved by 2007. However: regardless if we destroy surplus or get paid not to produce it, it won't help feed more people. >>Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous. > I've seen some extraordinary sketchy studies on this, but nothing > substantial. With 95% or so of the US eating food that has been genetically > modified, then we should see the effects with real science. I've checked the > latest study of organic food vs. non-organic, and absolutely no health > benefits were found with organic foods. Yes, residue pesticides exist on That wasn't the danger I meant. >>Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, "trial & error > breeding". > Genes don't care how they are modified. Dan, you still think like a scientist. You need to think like a greedy idiot to understand what I mean. :-) In historic times, 232 different races of domestic pigs could be found in Germany. In more modern times, this was reduced to one single race (the most efficient, short-term money-wise). Nowadays, a few "old races" seem to have re-appeared. The real problem is that if you base you base your country-wide farming on a single race of crop, diseases can lead to crop failure or mass mortality. Country-wide. Diverse redundancy would have helped. The problem are not genetic modifications by themselves, but the reasons *why* and *how* it is employed. It's used to maximize short-term profits. There's a risk to it, as mentioned above. But, what the heck, if anything fucks up, the state will bails us out again. Yup, not only bankers think that way, farmers as well. > The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it, > I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and > the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small > amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad, > wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal > life in the area, etc? That's what they said about DDT, too. However, I'm still suspicious. Monsanto apparently prefers buying politicians over addressing my doubts and concerns. While their product safety tests have their merits, I find them a bit...simplistic for a technology on which a complete country relies on for feeding its population. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>> Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, > probably even using the wind >>turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, > not technology. > I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly > used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric > dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good > windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle > of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is > porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high Only for an ideal wind turbine. In real life, current designs have to be turned out of the wind if the wind gets strong. They actually have a rather small range of wind speeds in which they can operate; both weak and strong wind is a problem. Vertical wind turbines, like the Savonius design, are less efficient, but can cope with a wider range of wind speed (including weaker wind and turbulent wind). Advocates of vertical wind turbines often cite conspiracy theories as the reason for the limited use of these designs in large scales. > wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one > line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very > specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in > elevation from one large area to anothermountaintops aren't good because > you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas, > and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were > easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in > wind would be doing water storage already. Nope. In Germany, political reasons are the real reasons, not common sense. Electricity from wind turbines was highly subsidized, with the result that it became "commercially efficient" to erect wind parks at location which made absolutely no sense. After this had been found out, the subsidies have been reduced. But still you can make more money by producing electricity than by pumping water. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
>Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to keep the price up, >surplus is destroyed. I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the Great Depression, when prices were so low during the deflationary era that it wasn't worth the cost of bringing them to market. Since then, farmers have been paid to leave land fallow. Lately, it's been much better. Farmers are paid to plant land with the greatest risk for erosion with grasses that are superior for soil retention. That's one reason why, on US farms, topsoil is increasing. My stepfather in law grew up on his family farm and farmed until he retiredand he's very familiar with how grains are grown. >Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous. I've seen some extraordinary sketchy studies on this, but nothing substantial. With 95% or so of the US eating food that has been genetically modified, then we should see the effects with real science. I've checked the latest study of organic food vs. non-organic, and absolutely no health benefits were found with organic foods. Yes, residue pesticides exist on non-organic food, but the linear hypothesis is required to assume danger. And, I drink to the great fellow who gave a beautiful illustration of the problems with the linear hypothesis. And, a friend of mine points out, India is self sufficient in food with > 2x the population it had when starvation was epidemic. He said that the person who created a the short stalk grain hybrid saved the lives of many of his friends. >Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, "trial & error breeding". Genes don't care how they are modified. >My problem with Monsanto is that they not only sell the crop, but also poison which kills every living >thing (except their genetically modified crop). The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it, I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad, wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal life in the area, etc? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:13 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote: >> So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. >> Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down >> to a virtual halt. >Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only >question is when that tax comes, not if. How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not populareven going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much for Obama to propose. Given the fact that Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate 95-0, I can't see carbon taxes at 5x the European level. At the present level of Europe's tax, it would cost an extra 0.6 cents/kwH for natural gas and 1.2 cents per kWh for coal. That's peanuts compared to the extra cost for wind/endergy storage which is by far the cheapest form of energy. And for gasoline, it's an extra 11 cents/gallon, well within the weekly variation in price. And, this is just the US. China will just use coal. But, windmills will not be effective until the total cost, with energy storage, becomes within a 2-3 cents/kwH of other sources. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
> Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind >turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, not technology. I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in elevation from one large area to anothermountaintops aren't good because you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in wind would be doing water storage already. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to yourself. I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance of suceeeding. >Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of working on power satellites >and laser propulsion. I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix. But, we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run. Short run: give nuclear power a level playing field...the same safety requirements as any other industry, and allow the testing of new safer, cheaper designs in the US and Europe. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that the Communist party/the government of China is a good source for innovation. Princelings tend to not want to vary from the tried and true much. So it is up to Europe and the US to do this. (I've had experience both with Chinese tech. goods and as a potential vendor for China and you can see the fingers of the Communist party holding back the wheels of progress in both cases). Short run: improve fuel efficiency standards. Add a tax to gasoline and electricity. Have rebates for low income people to balance the tax. If they spend it elsewhere, find. Short run: build a natural gas infrastructure for truck transportation in the US. The decline in US emissions to 1992 levels (even though the population increased 23%) is mostly due to the switch to natural gas from coal. But, the critical area is the developing world. China puts out more CO2 than the US and EU combined, and the new coal plants on order from China and India will add this amount again. So, we need to make nuclear power cheap. It may not be enough to be as cheap as coal, and in that case the west could switch but India and China would be far less likely to. In the west, the small difference in cost would not be a barrier. The difference is larger in India and China because coal is very cheap with no pollution control or mining regulations. Mid term, offer subsidies for synthetic biofuels that do not displace cropland. Right now, several companies are in pilot to initial commercial appplication. I'd give this field the highest chance of working: say 25% chance of being close to competitive with gasoline while using concentrated waste CO2, sunlight, bioengineered life forms, and brackish water. Then, the goverments should support research in areas that would allow for alternative energy in decades. This would be developing our knowledge in a lot of different fields so someoone could put the knowledge together to develop either a power source or effective power storage. They include Plasma physics Mesoscopic physics Synthetic biology Material sciences And more engineering oriented, but still experimental: Development of capacitance Development of compact accelerators This is not exhaustive, I'd welcome suggestions. It's putting governments back in the business of funding fundamental research at, say, 1% of GDP. There will be scores of possibilities that all have a 1%-2% chance of working. And when one does, venture capital and small companies can be the mechanism for picking winners and losers. The government's job is to prepare the field. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
In a message dated 11/29/2012 6:47:33 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, net_democr...@yahoo.com writes: > The measure of a civilization could be said to be > its consumption of energy and how it uses resources. > Conspicuous v. sustainable... > Jon > > From: medieva...@aol.com > Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, > I think, where all future > civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. > Nothing stored from the past was left. I never could get through Stapleton. What was destroyed; all other sources of power? How could that be? Atomic power (though not named exactly as such) burned of most of the crust. Mankind restarted from one Arctic scientific research boat. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Clean high tech solutions
>> >How were the European Greens responsible for keeping >> Uganda poor, by >> turning them away from nuclear? >> Two ways: >> 1) They have extremely strict and unreasonable standards for >> imported food. >> For example, its virtually impossible for US food products >> to be sold there. Unreasonable standards? I do not know about Uganda, but I know other markets where such apparently overly strict standards are exist. Officially, it's claimed to prevent harm to the people by disallowing low quality imports. In reality, these standards are meant to prevent imports, simply to prevent money from leaving the country. Unless, of course, the money is used to import Ferraris or Lamborginis for the ruling class. Or weapons. The military also want their toys, and in some countries the ruler depends on the support of the military (like, North Korea). Feck. I realize that I do know too much about politics. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>> So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low >> wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down >> to a virtual halt. > Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being > expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. Of course, certain critical businesses will be exempt from that tax. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Clean high tech solutions
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > > I'm reading John Varley's Slow Apocalypse. The premise is > > that all un-processed petroleum is destroyed by an act of > > bio-terrorism. In the middle of it right now, but so far > > it's scaring the spit out of me. > > john > > why? > > I know intellectually that we live in a fragile civilization, but I suppose that I haven't felt it emotionally. But seeing Sandy's effects on my city (I live in Washington Heights, a neighborhood in Manhattan that thankfully was spared the devastation in other neighborhoods of the city), makes me begin to *feel* just how fragile things are. ConEd loses a substation and suddenly 200k people don't have power. No power and there is no way to pump water to floors in buildings. First responders are overwhelmed. A neighborhood is destroyed by fire because there is no water pressure in the hydrants to fight the fire. So I suppose I'm in the *right* frame of mind to read Varley's book. Next up is Barnes' Directive 51. john > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
> In fact, the other major sin of the Greens (in addition to being against > nuclear power) That's their political agenda. When the CDU announced that the nuclear power plants in Germany will be shut down, the greens were not alltogether sure if they really wanted that... ;-) > is the opposition to genetically modified crops. I get > the fact that Monsanto is the poster child for evil greed, but there > really isn't any other way to feed the number of people we now have, let > alone will soon have, without those high-yield crops. Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to keep the price up, surplus is destroyed. Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous. Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, "trial & error breeding". My problem with Monsanto is that they not only sell the crop, but also poison which kills every living thing (except their genetically modified crop). - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
On 11/29/2012 9:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote: They convinced Uganda that using fertilizer and insecticides was bad. That's why the crop yield is so low. Little grows and the insects get most of it. The US, on the other hand, uses insecticides in cycles so it's hard for the insects to develop immunity to several insecticides...what is superior for one is inferior for the other. And, farmland is now adding topsoil with fertilizer and advanced techniques, and genetically modified crops. If we could get corn to fix nitrogen better, we'd be home free. In fact, the other major sin of the Greens (in addition to being against nuclear power) is the opposition to genetically modified crops. I get the fact that Monsanto is the poster child for evil greed, but there really isn't any other way to feed the number of people we now have, let alone will soon have, without those high-yield crops. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote: So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/29/2012 6:38 PM, Dan Minette wrote: They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So, using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it. Well, I just noted that a new technology has come along that replaces much of the use of rare earth elements (it had to do with electric motors). This is one of the reasons you have to be slightly skeptical about attempts to use predatory pricing to create monopolies. The very act of raising prices creates a strong incentive for substitutes, among other things. I just did a Google search on "rare earth substitutes" that brought back a number of recent articles about how rare earth prices were falling as a result of manufacturers finding substitutes, and other articles about how manufacturers are finding those substitutes. Now, I cannot say exactly how this will play out since predictions are hard, especially when they are about the future. ;) But there is a concept in economics called "hysteresis" that says that changes once made are sometimes hard to reverse. A great example of this was the automobile market in the 1970s. When oil prices rose, consumers went looking for fuel-efficient autos. When U.S. manufacturers could not meet this demand, they turned to the hitherto ignored Japanese cars. This led them to discover a previously unknown fact, that those cars were of higher quality than American cars. As a result, even when oil prices fell, the market share of Japanese autos did not fall back to its previous level. A "permanent" change had occurred in consumers' preferences. It is at least conceivable to me that the research into alternatives to rare earths will result in a "permanent" fall in demand for them. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only >some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when >the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other sources of >energy. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Texas actually had a fairly large number of windmills. And, they had been used in tandum with expensive natural gas. The natural gas plants are cheaper than coal, but the fuel was more expensive. So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. The largest German company in this field has calculated that they can only count on about 10% of the nameplate capacity from windmills. As a result, when windmills get to over 6%-10% of total grid power, they become impractical. The black swan I was talking about was a cheap efficient storage mechanism for vast amounts of power. That would make windmills practical as a significant source. Otherwise, we can have them as a 4%-8% source, but always need to rely on other sources. At low levels, this might make ecconomic sense. But, having two sets of power plants, overall, does not make sense. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>> Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why >> wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. >> It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. >> > Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a > country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are > outside it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when > the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used > complementary to other sources of energy. I remember one study where it was predicted that if (in Germany) 10% if the required electricity is produced by wind, temperatures on land will rise and drop on the sea. To me, that sounds like wind farms on land will deliver not enough energy to power the air conditions we might need. Wind farms on the water will reduce evaporation. No idea how big this impact will be, but if we begin to need desalination plants to provide water for irrigation, wind farms might again lead to less energy instead of more. Furthermore, the currently used designs require massive maintenance. Production of replacement parts is not CO2-neutral. Not by far! Yo, still somewhat better than burning coal. But still surprisingly "dirty". Water is, AFAIR, even worse. The water basins replace plants, which would otherwise convert CO2. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity are often cited as a solution to the storage problem. Apart from the problem mentioned above, they are also inefficient. While a modern pumped-storage hydropower station may yield an efficiency between 70% and 80%, energy transmission from and to the the site also takes a toll. It's estimated that today about 50% of the electrical energy is lost on it's wan from the power plant to the user. Consider that the energy might to be transmitted twice (to the pumped-storage hydropower station and back). Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, not technology. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Dan Minette wrote: > > Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why > wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. > It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. > Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save "water" and not consume natural gas when the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other sources of energy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:47 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Power and civilization > The measure of a civilization could be said to be its consumption of > energy and how it uses resources. > Conspicuous v. sustainable... > Jon > > From: medieva...@aol.com > Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, I think, where all > future civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. > Nothing stored from the past was left. I never could get through Stapleton. What was destroyed; all other sources of power? How could that be? > > From: John Garcia > I'm reading John Varley's Slow Apocalypse. The premise is that all > un-processed petroleum is destroyed by an act of bio-terrorism. In the > middle of it right now, but so far it's scaring the spit out of me. > john Years ago George R.R. Martin wrote a pilot called "Doors". If I remember correctly it was about an alternative Earth where a virus was created to absorb oil spills and it ended up eating up all traces of petrochemicals everywhere on Earth and civilization went back to the horse and buggy days. (not necessarily a bad thing!~) Jon Mann > >The measure of a civilization could be said to be > Its consumption of energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. > sustainable... > Jon Mann > At what point was civilization sustainable without depending on > unknowable innovations in the future? It would have to be before > steel, because blacksmithing almost deforested England before coal was > found and used (back around 1000 I think). Going to Africa, and > seeing the sustainable organic farming they used to get 5 bushels/acre > out of depleted soil reminded me of what my Zambian daughter Neli > argued, to no avail, to the government of Uganda. That using natural > methods would just have it's people starve, like they have for > centuries. Unfortunately, the European Greens were more powerful in > their persuasionand Uganda will remain poor until they stop > listening to them. It's hard because the EU policy is dedicated to > protecting inefficient EU (mostly French) farmers. > Dan M. >You have a Zambian daughter, Dan? Two. The eldest, Neli, came to the US about 10 years ago. She is an ecconomist who was a Brookings Institute fellow for a couple of years, concentrating on African development. She was always second author on the papers she wrote, with a big name as first author. She was quietly upset until she found out high government officials called Brookings to complain about the papers and talked with the big wig instead of yelling at her. We were in Zambia for two weeks in August, with 10 from the US (including Neli and her American husband) and 5 from Zambia and went all over Zambia as one big happy American-African family. We went to the home villages of both of Neli's parents. I got to dance in lion skins with the village wariors at her mom's village. >I have no clue at what point civilization was sustainable after the leap from hunter gatherer to >agriculture to industrial society. I suppose it won't happen unless humanity matures beyond greedy, >pleasure seeking immediate gratification, self centered behavior, and that probably won't happen >unless there is a singularity event. Actually, most commodities (e.g. iron and copper) are used less now. If we can solve one of many problems (e.g. find a cheap way of storing energy, have a venture like Joule Technology work in synthetic biofuels, have a way to "poison" breeder reactor fuel output so it can't be used for bombs, develop mesoscopic physics to the point where solar cells are practical) in the next 250 years, we won't need to worry. >How were the European Greens responsible for keeping Uganda poor, by turning them away from nuclear? Two ways: 1) They have extremely strict and unreasonable standards for imported food. For example, its virtually impossible for US food products to be sold there. 2) They convinced Uganda that using fertilizer and insecticides was bad. That's why the crop yield is so low. Little grows and the insects get most of it. The US, on the other hand, uses insecticides in cycles so it's hard for the insects to develop immunity to several insecticides...what is superior for one is inferior for the other. And, farmland is now adding topsoil with fertilizer and advanced techniques, and genetically modified crops. If we could get corn to fix nitrogen better, we'd be home free. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
I'm picking up Directive 51 from the NY Public Library in the next day or two. On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Pat Mathews wrote: > John Barnes' Directive 51 went it one better - ALL petroleum and > petroleum products. It did devolve into the question of whether it was a > centrally organized conspiracy, preferably from abroad, or a spontaneous > movement; in fact, the entire US splits over that question, thanks to a > disagreement in the administration on whose watch it happens. There is a > sequel; not sure there is a third. > > -- > Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:49:34 -0500 > Subject: Re: Power and civilization > From: john...@gmail.com > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > > I'm reading John Varley's Slow Apocalypse. The premise is that all > un-processed petroleum is destroyed by an act of bio-terrorism. In the > middle of it right now, but so far it's scaring the spit out of me. > > john > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM, wrote: > > ** > > Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, I think, where all future > civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. Nothing stored from the > past was left. > > > In a message dated 11/29/2012 12:58:45 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, > net_democr...@yahoo.com writes: > > The measure of a civilization could be said to be it's consumption of > energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
John Barnes' Directive 51 went it one better - ALL petroleum and petroleum products. It did devolve into the question of whether it was a centrally organized conspiracy, preferably from abroad, or a spontaneous movement; in fact, the entire US splits over that question, thanks to a disagreement in the administration on whose watch it happens. There is a sequel; not sure there is a third. Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:49:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Power and civilization From: john...@gmail.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com I'm reading John Varley's Slow Apocalypse. The premise is that all un-processed petroleum is destroyed by an act of bio-terrorism. In the middle of it right now, but so far it's scaring the spit out of me. john On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM, wrote: Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, I think, where all future civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. Nothing stored from the past was left. In a message dated 11/29/2012 12:58:45 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, net_democr...@yahoo.com writes: The measure of a civilization could be said to be it's consumption of energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
>The measure of a civilization could be said to be it's consumption of energy and how it uses resources. >Conspicuous v. sustainable... At what point was civilization sustainable without depending on unknowable innovations in the future? It would have to be before steel, because blacksmithing almost deforested England before coal was found and used (back around 1000 I think). Going to Africa, and seeing the sustainable organic farming they used to get 5 bushels/acre out of depleted soil reminded me of what my Zambian daughter Neli argued, to no avail, to the government of Uganda. That using natural methods would just have it's people starve, like they have for centuries. Unfortunately, the European Greens were more powerful in their persuasionand Uganda will remain poor until they stop listening to them. It's hard because the EU policy is dedicated to protecting inefficient EU (mostly French) farmers. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
I'm reading John Varley's Slow Apocalypse. The premise is that all un-processed petroleum is destroyed by an act of bio-terrorism. In the middle of it right now, but so far it's scaring the spit out of me. john On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM, wrote: > ** > > Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, I think, where all future > civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. Nothing stored from the > past was left. > > > In a message dated 11/29/2012 12:58:45 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, > net_democr...@yahoo.com writes: > > The measure of a civilization could be said to be it's consumption of > energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:06 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote: >> "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite >> and use > it for propulsion >> lasers to bring up parts for thousands. " > With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for > 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you > point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale > in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even > less likely than earth bound solar cells. Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting: >A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up several interesting topics. >First, this is arguably the most important technology of the 21st century since it not only provides >energy security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does not appear in this story. But, the technology is extremely expensive, even the cheap version. That is why Germany is building coal plants to replace the nuclear plants, while solar represents only 0.3% of the total energy supply. China is subsidizing it's solar panels in an attempt to gain a monopoly in selling solar panals. It doesn't really use themI couldn't get a number just on Chinese solar panels, but there total renewable (excluding hydroelectric and wood) is 0.2% of their energy consumption, and wind is much cheaper, so maybe they have 0.01%-0.05% solar. They have a natural advantage in that they can just dump the toxic byproduct of making solar cells instead of processing them. That cuts material costs tremendously. They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So, using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it. But, since solar power is a feel good luxury, and shows no sign of being an important part of any ecconomy, they cannot use it as a political weapon. A country can do without solar power; it cannot do without rare earths. Nuclear power and biofuels from synthetic biology and bioengineering are far more likely to be used as green energy sources. One advange each has is that the development of efficient storage is not required for their use. In a real sense, solar needs two breakthroughs that we cannot see to be effective. Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests. It depends on how close you are to the nuclear bomb test. But, oil is generally lower in radioactivity than bananas. If you are far enough away from the test, then the radiation is so low, it's orders of magnitude below what you get from eating a banana. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, I think, where all future civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. Nothing stored from the past was left. In a message dated 11/29/2012 12:58:45 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, net_democr...@yahoo.com writes: The measure of a civilization could be said to be it's consumption of energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... ___ _http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com_ (http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" wrote: snip > I was basically asking if you've been around the block. That's not an appeal > to authority, just the result of the observation that folks who've walked > the walk are more likely to be accurate the next time they talk the talk > than folks who never walked the walk. It's not hard to find out what I have done, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson > I did look at high energy lasers, and the person who wrote > > http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html > > Looks like he has worked with high power lasers. One notes that high power > is 5 kWatt, and the many caveats for use at that energy. These http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/vesta/ are 15 kW and have been ganged to over 100 kW. Getting to the GW level (out in space no less) is just a matter of having a lot of money to buy lasers and haul them out there. snip > So, I won't say never to power satellites, but > I'd saw it's probably three black swans awayand they have to be just the > three black swans we need. If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to yourself. Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of working on power satellites and laser propulsion. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
On 11/28/2012 7:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: In regard to Kevin B. O'Brien's comments, the Chinese are far more likely to build propulsion lasers and power sats than the US. It's possible they have already made the decision, see the recent announcement about building power sats with the Indians. They could build power sats with their PV production and sell power or power sats instead of panels. If they do so that is great. I also recall reading that they have been looking at pebble-bed reactors as an energy source. That is all to the good. What is abundantly clear is that they have no intention at all of cutting down on their energy use and economic growth, so any environmental progress will depend on rolling out cleaner alternatives. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
>> With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for >> 50 years. >That's impressive hearing considering that the big, high efficiency lasers that make this >concept possible have been around for less than 5 years. This particular combination, I haven't heard for 50 years. But, the basic physics of photoelectric cells has been around for over a century; current produced by low intensity beams was one of the key early experiments that led to QM. So, the basic physics for solar panels has been around that longOK, not well understood for a couple of decades. Still, Germany is building more coal plants for electricity and solar panels for show. The physics behind fusion power has been around for 60 years. In the '50s, it was assumed that fusion plants would be common in the '80s. The physics hasn't changed. But, a lot of practical problems have come up, and the optimists are saying 30 years, like they did in the 50s. I've seen resources poured into things for which the physics would work, but any good applied physicist could see was vaporware. Just at my work, over million was spent on a shake table that tested at different frequencies than applied downhole. One of the critical points of their argument was not to involve any technical people in the decision because they were "wedded to the old paradigm." Or acoustic telemetry while drillingthat only worked when the drill string didn't touch the borehole wall at quasi-random points (which happens all the time). Or downhole robots. In almost all of the cases I can think of, there are no answers to practical questions. Folks who have been responsible for building fleets of tools that work worldwide, that operate at 150C with 20G rms vibration tend to know what questions to ask about folks who propose new ideas that the company should put vast resources in. Unfortunately, the chief corporate technology officer, like the person in change of computing for the corporation often was in the '80s, did not have ordinary skill in the art. This is what I referred to. I only gave a fraction of the answers. we could add inertia fusion in the '80s, the multiple times solar power was going to be cost effective in 5-10 years, etc. None of these concepts violated laws of physics. But, anyone who has been around the block knew they were sketchy. >> One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a >> design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major >> industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely >> than earth bound solar cells. >But I don't exactly see why you are appealing to authority. The physics behind this concept is >either correct or it is not. So far the people who are qualified to express an opinion and have done >so all say I got the physics right. I was basically asking if you've been around the block. That's not an appeal to authority, just the result of the observation that folks who've walked the walk are more likely to be accurate the next time they talk the talk than folks who never walked the walk. I did look at high energy lasers, and the person who wrote http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html Looks like he has worked with high power lasers. One notes that high power is 5 kWatt, and the many caveats for use at that energy. >It's not that bad. If you can remember or relearn a few pages of high school physics (the rocket >equation and Newton's laws), you can be qualified to express an opinion too. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I keep telling myself that when I hear how modern science is a left wing plot. But, the question is not whether an opinion is constitutionally protected (I think flat earth folks have constitutionally protected opinions), but whether it is right. Your ideas don't violate the laws of physics any more than the idea that folks had in '30s of the world of tomorrow violated physics. But, reading the article, and thinking about laser based propulsion, I can see overwhelming practical problems that would have to be solved. Looking at articles on laser propulsion, it is definitely in the highly speculative phase right now. In fact, part way along the way to your plan, we should have enough control over beams (particle beams have real advantages over lasers here) to do inertia fusion practically. So, I won't say never to power satellites, but I'd saw it's probably three black swans awayand they have to be just the three black swans we need. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: snip > Our political leaders don't need solutions, they need fear. Once you > control voters by fear, you can do literally everything. snip > However, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, has studied physics. > I'm wondering if she would be open to scientific solutions. Or if > there political contrains which would prevent her from actually > persuing solutions. > > - Klaus That's a good idea. Any thoughts on presenting this to someone who knows her? "Dan Minette" wrote: > With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 > years. That's impressive hearing considering that the big, high efficiency lasers that make this concept possible have been around for less than 5 years. > One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a > design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major > industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than > earth bound solar cells. No. Closest would be the log-antilog 4 quadrant multiplier I invented in the early 70s while working for Burr-Brown. In the heyday of analog control these were use from tire balancing machines to the control of thousand ton ball mills. But I don't exactly see why you are appealing to authority. The physics behind this concept is either correct or it is not. So far the people who are qualified to express an opinion and have done so all say I got the physics right. It's not that bad. If you can remember or relearn a few pages of high school physics (the rocket equation and Newton's laws), you can be qualified to express an opinion too. In regard to Kevin B. O'Brien's comments, the Chinese are far more likely to build propulsion lasers and power sats than the US. It's possible they have already made the decision, see the recent announcement about building power sats with the Indians. They could build power sats with their PV production and sell power or power sats instead of panels. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote: "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. " With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting: http://www.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=5336750 A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up several interesting topics. First, this is arguably the most important technology of the 21st century since it not only provides energy security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does not appear in this story. Third, there is an interesting economic argument. The Chinese government is subsidizing their manufacturers which results in Chinese solar panels being about 30% cheaper (per the story. I have not verified this independently.) From one perspective, you could argue that this is great for consumers. China is making everything 30% cheaper! Woo hoo! The objection is that this would undermine local producers, but that is not as clear a problem as the European manufacturers would like to say. For the advantage to be permanent you would need either perpetual subsidies by the Chinese government or some kind of barrier to entry in the solar panel market that would keep out competitors. Economic theory says that potentially the Chinese manufacturers could use these subsidies to drive out competitors, and when that was accomplished they would just raise prices and enjoy monopoly rents. But without the barriers to entry, that cannot happen. The other solution, if you think that subsidies by one side is a problem, is to create counter-subsidies. That might be preferable to a trade war, and arguably would help promote a technology we desperately need. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Space progress report
Keith said: > Friday I visited Reaction Engines. Delightful experience meeting Alan > Bond and Richard Varvill, the key technical guys. They have (and I > saw) the precooler for the SABRE engines working. They extract a GW > of heat from entering ram air and drop the temperature to -150 deg, > making it possible to compress the air to rocket chamber pressure with > a low tech turbine. Miles of tiny tubes in each one, and they *don't > leak.* Speaking of Skylon, the SABRE precooler has now successfully passed its test programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20510112 Rich___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>"Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion >lasers to bring up parts for thousands. " With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Dan M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
>> This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very >> few people approach problems that way. > Twitter compressed solution > "Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite > and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. " > If anyone wants to know more, ask. Our political leaders don't need solutions, they need fear. Once you control voters by fear, you can do literally everything. That's toally different from us people with a scientific background, who still believe that we're constrained by physical laws. Or math. Or reason. Or logic. It works because politicians don't even get close to breaching natural laws. They are content with much, much simpler achievements. Personal wealth, power or just making certain other people feel miserable. However, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, has studied physics. I'm wondering if she would be open to scientific solutions. Or if there political contrains which would prevent her from actually persuing solutions. - Klaus ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
> I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the > design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are > even safer. Um, like the german SNR-300 design? Yup, the first reactor with a core catcher! Which was, of course, dismantled. Apparently, there's only one things the "greens" fear more than an unsafe reactor - and that's a safer one. Funny quote from a politician who opposed the SNR-300: "If we had such technology, we'd have to export it, too.". That wouldn't have helped Fukushima; that was a 1960s design, while the SR-300 was a 1970s design, which was being upgraded though the 1980s. And now something completely different (warning: machine translation!): http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planet-wissen.de%2Fnatur_technik%2Fenergie%2Ferdoel%2Finterview.jsp Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests. - Klaus -- Best regards, Klausmailto:k...@stock-consulting.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/26/2012 9:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Since we don't want this list dominated by carved Norwegian tourist shop items, I thought I'd throw out an argument. I have seen Germany and Japan shutting down nuclear energy, after the Greens have suceeded in making it non-PC. They had argued that the energy will be replaced by renewaable sources. But, reality has set in, and they are being replaced by fossil fuels. Indeed, the biggest rise in energy production will be coal plants. As http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-than-1000-new-coal-plants-planned-wo rldwide-15279 shows, there are plans for 1.4 trillion watts of capacity being added now in process. This will add the equivalent of another China in greenhouse gas emissions, more than the US and EU combined. So, I'd argue that the Green's main effect on the environment has been to increase greenhouse gas emissions by making nuclear power politically unacceptable. Japan shutting down their reactor after the only nuclear damage having been radiation burns on the feet of workers who walked into radioactive water without checking and without boots (non-fatal) is amazing. It's like shutting down all automobile traffic after the 100 car pileup on Thanksgiving on I-10. I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are even safer. This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very few people approach problems that way. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
For God's sake (written as 日本酒), Japan had the "earthquake of the century", it hit hard on the nuclear plants, and almost nothing happened. If this is not a very good security test on nuclear power, then I don't know what could be. Maybe hit a nuclear plant with an airplane? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Troll on the list needs to learn manners...
At least in my defense I won't bother replying to him. Damon. On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:12:03 -0500, Damon Agretto > wrote: >> >> My question for the list is: if John comes across as a troll, why are >> people responding to him? By doing so, you give him exactly what he >> wants. By getting a rise out of others, he makes you dance to his >> tune. If you really think he has nothing worthwhile to add to the >> conversation, don't reply to his goads! > > > ..he says, even though it's an indirect means of poking the troll. > ;) > > -- > Warren > > > ___ > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Troll on the list needs to learn manners...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:12:03 -0500, Damon Agretto wrote: My question for the list is: if John comes across as a troll, why are people responding to him? By doing so, you give him exactly what he wants. By getting a rise out of others, he makes you dance to his tune. If you really think he has nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, don't reply to his goads! ..he says, even though it's an indirect means of poking the troll. ;) -- Warren ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Troll on the list needs to learn manners...
My question for the list is: if John comes across as a troll, why are people responding to him? By doing so, you give him exactly what he wants. By getting a rise out of others, he makes you dance to his tune. If you really think he has nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, don't reply to his goads! Damon. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Troll on the list needs to learn manners...
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > > ... > My goals include getting the SMO airport closed, getting free WiFi with a > link to a Virtual Town Hall on the city website, etc. I have made > substantial progress in that direction. Sometimes the best way to win is > to lose. That is what Japan did... Close SMO?! We don't need any more small airports closing - we've lost thousands already and no new ones are opening. What's up with that? I've flown in and out of SMO many times... Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politeness
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 15:22:08 -0800, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa wrote: > But you're being a naughty-naughty, trying to take it off-list, little honey > boo-boo. No no no. What did I write to you that I did not post to the list? This. Check the headers. X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Envelope-From: jwilliams4...@gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by mail2c40.carrierzone.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id qAPMIL5e001019 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:18:23 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id v19so7943974obq.9 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=+vwmJsmf0QOTo4XBb5M4nvWWVeiu2nDDftAQhLpLQPw=; b=Oi6YgNjk6X16RPAoWC5kU0o/cIT/j2ocbXDg1P4c4shNjI35j19Eu4O0X8UYfGCgxK axtOKldyu5myaBlc7lGgLrGtOM0x3HYz7+eZZd6+KZFMQbfemTvdmDw6pIGPREnOx+6U Pzd9olFyVHgPumSQ1UPiVqibEXT42taJIjFzuf3EgjBoqksYjSVQihPXjns3prl5NfHF ReRgMsZhtzimHVKunDYXy/M34vyLYr0+XdiVQUotcG8EqHkOGMmbpF73ru67NUq8/Agj KZDhG8wXgeE2Wz7uqRsJmfYHqcsUxgA0gOXToSaxATGrnrrzzL7DOLZHH5gFPiTkuDPf 0IBw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.98.19 with SMTP id ee19mr7670870obb.90.1353881900967; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.87.102 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121125151357.ba2wzk3sgo488...@mail.nightwares.com> References: <1353811625.44944.yahoomailclas...@web110008.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20121125122109.srbnsnpnsossk...@mail.nightwares.com> <20121125151357.ba2wzk3sgo488...@mail.nightwares.com> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Politeness From: John Williams To: war...@nightwares.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.0 cv=LeaLHEji c=1 sm=1 a=nDghuxUhq_wA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=pGLkceIS:8 a=lClPhcSuEO0A:10 a=Zi8kF34D:8 a=_5XHeeiD_9X60fgI7TYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ZNTfuEKbaA8A:10 a=UGZ7QfJHoL6Lh6oHu0VgvA==:117 X-WHL: SLR On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa wrote: Aww, aren't you adorable? Here, honey, here's a wowwipop. Aww, aren't you good at passive aggressive insults? Here, suck on this. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politeness
I read it as more of a tantrum. But hey, potatoh, potahto. On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:42:37 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: I read this as a personal attack, which is not permitted in this group. Nick On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa wrote: > Having been watching from the sidelines, it's amazing how easy it is for me > to decide whose voice is respectable and mature, and whose is childish and > petulant, in this discussion. If only it were also easy for you to post something of value, instead of your opinion which is worthless. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com - ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com -- Warren ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
