Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the Legend in His Own Mind award. I congratulate you. It's called a discussion Ray. It's when 2 or more people share their experiences, thoughts and ideas. I see that you have nothing to add to it, tragic for a lurker's first post, so thanks for playing. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Ray Rheault wrote: I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the Legend in His Own Mind award. I congratulate you. Well put Ray! The way this discussion died reminds me of a conversation at a picnic of my wife's stamp club. It was a few years ago and we were talking about the Iraq war. Some thought it was a good thing, some knew it was a disaster. Then the wife of one of the members said something like we can trust Bush because he is a man of god. Conversation stopped. There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with someone with blind faith. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Apparently you missed the O's last town hall with people nearly prostrating themselves before him. Blind faith is not just a republican trait. On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Jordan jor17...@gmail.com wrote: Ray Rheault wrote: There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with someone with blind faith. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] need to find program to convert mpg file to still images
np ...if you need more editing than photoed.exe (incl. in M$OfficeXP or 2002 or earlier) or irfanview (free)you can get picasa (free)which can do more; if that is not enough, you can get gimp (free) which does everything that photoshop can do ...it is quite detailed and sophisticated in feature set ...complex to use with steep learning curve...good luck! -Original Message- From: Elaine Zablocki [mailto:elai...@ezab.net] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:03 AM To: rleesimon Subject: RE: need to find program to convert mpg file to still images Thank you so much. At 07:40 AM 2/13/2009, you wrote: simple way ...copy movie to your desktop ...play the movie with any player ...stop the movie on the frame you want to do a copy of ...press print screen key ...open a photo editor of choice and paste as NEW image ...do what you wish to crop it and print it ...I use photoed.exe which came with M$ office xp or 2002 ...go get irfanview which is free if you don't have that!! -Original Message- From: Elaine Zablocki [mailto:elainezablo...@ezab.net] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:55 PM Subject: need to find program to convert mpg file to still images I have a camera that can take both JPEG's and short movies. I now have a two-second video file, in mpg format, and I would like to get some of the individual images out of this file. How can I do that? Could anyone recommend a program that would change the video file into several jpegs? I know programs like this must exist ... which one would you recommend? I am using Windows XP Home on a computer that was built about four years ago and still works fine. Pentium 4, 2 .8 Ghz, two Gb RAM. Many thanks, Elaine *** ** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.234 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1950 - Release Date: 02/12/09 18:46:00 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with someone with blind faith. By George, Jordan, I think you finally have got it! Others can beat their heads against the unyielding wall of incurious partisanship, but me? Nah. Life's too short. Have a nice day. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Safari vulnerability patched
Vulnerability below fixed by a security update (Mac) and Safari update (Windows) released yesterday by Apple. Users of this browser should be sure to get the update. DESCRIPTION: Apple's Safari browser reportedly vulnerable to an attack permitting a malicious web site to read hard drive files and facilitate access to sensitive information such as emails, passwords, or cookies that could be used to hack the user's accounts on some web sites. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote: -- Original message from Matthew Taylor taylorsmatt...@gmail.com: On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and diminishing prospects. What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its peak about now. This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots left but it means we probably face declining amounts of available oil, plus increased competition from other countries for what is available. While various substitutes for oil have been suggested, my understanding is that none of them have the same amount of available energy as oil does. People talk about oil shale, or substitutes based on coal... but it TAKES a lot of energy to start with those substitutes and transform them into something that can perform the same functions as oil. They may be helpful, but they aren't enough to replace the amount of oil that we depend on. Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we could go look for them then the scarcity would become a new opportunity. However, people have been doing a lot of looking and they haven't come up with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've been pumping for the last 100 years or more. So... they MIGHT find a lot more but also they may not, and we need to start getting our minds used to this unpalatable fact. I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I find it's very difficult to take in this information... because it means our lives are going to change a lot over the next decades. This is depressing information. I keep wanting to put down the book and go read something more pleasant. However, as I keep reading, the facts do seem to be that we're going to face oil shortages, and our lives will have to change. If this is the truth, better to face up to it now. It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price per barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects. Here's one book on the subject: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies by Richard Heinberg I've also been reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. The two books together help me understand what has been happening over the past few months, and what to expect (and prepare for) in future years... but as I said, this isn't pleasant reading. Necessary, though. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Elaine Zablocki elainezablo...@ezab.netwrote: At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote: -- Original message from Matthew Taylor taylorsmatt...@gmail.com: On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and diminishing prospects. What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its peak about now. This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots left but it means we probably face declining amounts of available oil, plus increased competition from other countries for what is available. While various substitutes for oil have been suggested, my understanding is that none of them have the same amount of available energy as oil does. People talk about oil shale, or substitutes based on coal... but it TAKES a lot of energy to start with those substitutes and transform them into something that can perform the same functions as oil. They may be helpful, but they aren't enough to replace the amount of oil that we depend on. Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we could go look for them then the scarcity would become a new opportunity. However, people have been doing a lot of looking and they haven't come up with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've been pumping for the last 100 years or more. So... they MIGHT find a lot more but also they may not, and we need to start getting our minds used to this unpalatable fact. I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I find it's very difficult to take in this information... because it means our lives are going to change a lot over the next decades. This is depressing information. I keep wanting to put down the book and go read something more pleasant. However, as I keep reading, the facts do seem to be that we're going to face oil shortages, and our lives will have to change. If this is the truth, better to face up to it now. It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price per barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects. Here's one book on the subject: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies by Richard Heinberg I've also been reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. The two books together help me understand what has been happening over the past few months, and what to expect (and prepare for) in future years... but as I said, this isn't pleasant reading. Necessary, though. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * -- Make sure you support your local CarbonONset programs! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Safari vulnerability patched
woah ...tryin'2 tickle john?? -Original Message- From: johnleehol...@gmail.com [mailto:johnleehol...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 12:31 PM Subject: Safari vulnerability patched Vulnerability below fixed by a security update (Mac) and Safari update (Windows) released yesterday by Apple. Users of this browser should be sure to get the update. DESCRIPTION: Apple's Safari browser reportedly vulnerable to an attack permitting a malicious web site to read hard drive files and facilitate access to sensitive information such as emails, passwords, or cookies that could be used to hack the user's accounts on some web sites. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even World Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware of new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next decade. On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Elaine Zablocki elainezablo...@ezab.netwrote: At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote: -- Original message from Matthew Taylor taylorsmatt...@gmail.com: On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and diminishing prospects. What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its peak about now. [...] -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Discussion Rules [was: Redefining history]
Jeff Wright jswri...@gmail.com escribió: I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the Legend in His Own Mind award. I congratulate you. It's called a discussion Ray. It's when 2 or more people share their experiences, thoughts and ideas. I see that you have nothing to add to it, tragic for a lurker's first post, so thanks for playing. ...snip... Others can beat their heads against the unyielding wall of incurious partisanship, but me? Nah. Life's too short. Ray, you gotta pay yer dues before you're allowed to get snarky. Agree or disagree. Flame and be flamed. Oh, and welcome to the land beyond lurking. Thanks, Jeff. Seems that some people like beating their heads against the wall because it feels so good when they stop--whatever turns 'em on. What? Me worry? Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues. Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar works much better down here than wind) But most of all we need to develop power generating methods that do not rely solely on oil. My brother-in-law works at the Tar sands in Ft. McMurray, AL. What had been a boomtown the past few years is shrinking fast. One of the side effects of low oil prices is that it makes searching for alternative energy sources highly expensive which in turn makes it highly speculative. I do not think there are any easy answers, but the doom and gloom sayers do not help the situation either. They just drive up speculation which was part of the problem in the last run up of oil. Stewart At 01:09 PM 2/13/2009, you wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even World Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware of new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next decade. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
Vicky Staubly wrote: On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even World Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware of new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next decade. Many countries in the world are developing rapidly. (China in particular) They tend to want to live like we do, meaning in particular, many millions more cars. The article doesn't seem to address that. To say nothing of the pollution that these new oil extraction methods cause. Anyone who is well informed about this subject understands the precarious energy era we are heading into. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] What? Me Worry? - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! [was Redefining history]
Elaine Zablocki elainezablo...@ezab.net escribió: What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil. U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its peak about now. This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots left but it means we probably face declining amounts of available oil, plus increased competition from other countries for what is available ...blah blah blah... Think globally--act locally. I hear/see lots of people complaining about the price/scarcity of oil from their lonely perches in their huge SUVs. Not paying attention? Drive a behemoth, then don't complain about oil. Can't afford to heat your house? Maybe you're in the wrong house, using the wrong heating/cooling system. Food too expensive. Eat lower on the food chain or learn to cook expensive food for less. Coal is too dirty? Nuke plants are dangerous [I live within the 50 mile radius of TMI and Salem plants. TMI near-meltdown was on my birthday] and waste is more dangerous? Switch to natural gas, propane, solar, wind. It's more expensive to do nothing than to make changes. If you don't want us to have more oil wars, it's completely possible--and affordable--to do something about it before the legislatures figure out what convoluted laws to pass to force you to switch, perhaps limiting your choices. Oil is dirty. I remember sitting on the beach in Nice picking up chunks of oil residue washed up from the last few oil spills. Over the past 20 years I've found oil blobs on almost every beach we've visited around the world--I've started a souvenir tarball collection. Ugh! I've done my part this year. Bought a new iMac that uses less than 1/4 as much power as the G4 it replaces. Bought a new car with a computer display that is stuck between 38 and 40 MPG average fuel consumption [it will be paid off by June, too]. Next car I want is a clean diesel that gets 65 MPG like they have in Europe--better than hybrids. I've lived in a solar house for 30 years, using about 1/3 the energy of other homes the same size, saving enough money to pay off the 30 year mortgage in 18 years, and use the rest of the savings to pay for college and travel a lot. What have you done on your own? Do you recycle? Cycle? Why are you waiting for the gummint to tell you what you have to do? Forget scarcity. Think about your wallet and your future. Buy thoughtfully. Vote carefully. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
At 10:54 AM 2/13/2009, mike wrote: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece The article Mike recommends mistates the peak oil hypothesis. It sets up a straw man and then knocks it down... a well-recognized debating technique. It says: Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark ... Typically, Peak Oil theorists believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling rapidly. Come on, folks on this list know what a bell curve is, don't they? Peak Oil theorists do believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling SLOWLY falling at about the same rate as they rose, in fact. No one is saying that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff. The people I'm reading say that we're probably entering a period of gradual decline in oil production. This article says that The Cera analysis targeted oilfields producing more than 10,000 barrels a day of conventional oil and concluded that overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year and that field decline rates were not increasing. This is much lower than the 7 to 8 percent average rate that is generally assumed in the industry. Overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year That sure sounds like a decline to me. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural _resources/article3207311.ece That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even World Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware of new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out eventually. Amen. And, of course, it completely ignores the real point: it wouldn't make any difference if the oceans themselves were filled with oil instead of water. We still have to replace fossil fuels with clean energy. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]
On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating the collection points and transmitting the electricity. I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues. And this is new how? Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar works much better down here than wind) And where Nuclear makes sense do that, and where coal makes sense, do that. But most of all we need to develop power generating methods that do not rely solely on oil. Agreed. Using solar and nuclear to crack sea water for hydrogen has promise in the long run. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Fedora printing question
How to I cancel/delete a job from the printing Queue in Fedora? Thanks Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Fedora printing question
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Stephen Brownfield wrote: How to I cancel/delete a job from the printing Queue in Fedora? Do you see a little printer icon in the top bar of your desktop? If so, click on that (just once) and a window should pop up with your jobs in it. Right click on the one you want to cancel, and select the Cancel menu item. If you don't see the job, try selecting Show completed jobs in the View menu. If it shows up then, the complete document may have been sent to the printer (or print server), and it's no longer on your machine. If not, then open up a Terminal window, and type lpq -a. (The -a tells it to show jobs queued up for all printers... if you have only one defined, you can omit that part.) If you see the job you want in that list, look at the jobs number on the left, and (assuming it's 123) type lprm 123. -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
I would like to set up automatic file replication on a pre Time Machine Tiger G5 so as to provide a 2nd copy of all critical user data files on a separate but local hard drive. Any recommendations? Hopefully freeware. db * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Discussion Rules [was: Redefining history]
That's not a discussion; that's practicing medicine without a license. It's also snarky, by the way. Discussions can't be snarky? Are you sure? I operate by the following rule of thumb: Anyone who is certain that they are right, about something that cannot be proven, is in all likelihood wrong. Interesting. A rule powered by its own irony. I'll bet that part where you ascribed my motivations was just a massive coincidence. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] What? Me Worry? - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! [was Redefining history]
What have you done on your own? Do you recycle? Cycle? Why are you waiting for the gummint to tell you what you have to do? Forget scarcity. Think about your wallet and your future. Buy thoughtfully. Vote carefully. Bravo Betty. You and I agree on very little, but you do walk the walk. For that, I applaud you. I only wish more environmentally-conscious people saw the carrot before they see the stick. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Discussion Rules [was: Redefining history]
Interesting. A rule powered by its own irony. Priceless! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues. Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar works much better down here than wind) ... I do not think there are any easy answers, but the doom and gloom sayers do not help the situation either. They just drive up speculation which was part of the problem in the last run up of oil. Stewart Stewart, In the '80s, after we built our solar house, the nuclear power industry put out a series of expensive TV and full page magazine and newspaper ads with this message: Solar will be a wonderful source of energy in maybe 30 to 50 years, and until then, you can use clean nuclear power [US Council for Energy Awareness]. I'd sit in our 75 degree greenhouse on a sunny cold 15 degree winter day, watching those astroturf ads on TV. As a result people built more sparsely insulated 1950's style homes, ignored the solar industry and wasted $billions. I live in Maryland. We don't get much sun in the winter. The house is a passive solar design that cost around 3-5% more than neighboring homes. Our backup heat is propane. Since you probably have little direct involvement with the solar industry, it's not surprising that you would say that you need a sunny climate to use solar energy. It's being used in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where combined solar and super-insulation with air to air heat exchangers can reduce winter energy consumption by over 50%. Swedes also use solar ponds. Every house in the southern and southwestern United States could use solar for heating, cooling and hot water, but few do. Most buildings in the rest of the US could use passive solar and some form of super-insulation as retrofits, and especially in new construction, plus photovoltaics [but that usually requires subsidy]. The technology is good, available, and affordable, but the subsidies are almost nothing compared to what oil, gas, nuclear, coal industries get. Might change if enough people get accurate information and ignore the naysayers. Perhaps alternative energy should be subsidized at the same level as fossil fuels and nukes, or get rid of all subsidies and see which technologies survive longest. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
I use Deja Vu (http://propagandaprod.com/dejavu.html). It is not free, but only cost $25. It used to be included with Toast. (I don't know if it still is.) If you have Toast and it is included, chances are you can upgrade for free. Steve db wrote: I would like to set up automatic file replication on a pre Time Machine Tiger G5 so as to provide a 2nd copy of all critical user data files on a separate but local hard drive. Any recommendations? Hopefully freeware. db * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating the collection points and transmitting the electricity. No, it's not true. You are thinking about renewable energy in a very narrow way. Around 30% of all energy used in this country is wasted through lack of energy efficiency. Efficiency is cheap. It's easy and doesn't require a much of a change in your lifestyle--energy meter, insulation, timers, smart switches, replace a broken water heater or refrigerator or AC with an efficient one; you're going to do it anyway, so get a good one and reduce your energy bill. Same for other appliances including transportation. Increasing the availability and use of mass transportation where possible also saves energy. However one of the big misconceptions is that solar and wind have to be part of the power grid. Passive solar doesn't at all. Photovoltaics can be but don't have to be unless you don't produce 100% of your own power. The NIMBYs and CAVEs [citizens against virtually everything] are a small but very loud contingent and often can be tempted by the money they'll be saving. Offshore wind farms can be several miles out to sea where they can barely be seen, where the wind is steadier. Other wind farms are in the mountains, and on private farms where owners are paid rent by the turbine companies. Turbines run slowly enough that they're not a significant danger to migrating birds according to recent reports on newer turbines. Individuals in remote locations can generate their own off-grid power. As with much of science and technology, the facts and details are often lost in the news blips that are released to the general public. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
Hear here Betty! I wish people would stop dismissing one energy source because it doesn't meet ALL their needs. It's a combination of things. Our car doesn't meet all our needs when we need to go to the dump. We have to borrow a friends truck. By the way, have you heard of or seen something called the Turby? It's a great windmill design. Oh, and the word is a link to their site. And some university, either Oregon or Calif. has developed a new and cheap solar film that's about 1/20th the cost of solar cell panels now in use. All it takes is a little motivation. Jeff M On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:24 PM, b_s-wilk wrote: One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues. Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar works much better down here than wind) ... I do not think there are any easy answers, but the doom and gloom sayers do not help the situation either. They just drive up speculation which was part of the problem in the last run up of oil. Stewart Stewart, In the '80s, after we built our solar house, the nuclear power industry put out a series of expensive TV and full page magazine and newspaper ads with this message: Solar will be a wonderful source of energy in maybe 30 to 50 years, and until then, you can use clean nuclear power [US Council for Energy Awareness]. I'd sit in our 75 degree greenhouse on a sunny cold 15 degree winter day, watching those astroturf ads on TV. As a result people built more sparsely insulated 1950's style homes, ignored the solar industry and wasted $billions. I live in Maryland. We don't get much sun in the winter. The house is a passive solar design that cost around 3-5% more than neighboring homes. Our backup heat is propane. Since you probably have little direct involvement with the solar industry, it's not surprising that you would say that you need a sunny climate to use solar energy. It's being used in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where combined solar and super-insulation with air to air heat exchangers can reduce winter energy consumption by over 50%. Swedes also use solar ponds. Every house in the southern and southwestern United States could use solar for heating, cooling and hot water, but few do. Most buildings in the rest of the US could use passive solar and some form of super- insulation as retrofits, and especially in new construction, plus photovoltaics [but that usually requires subsidy]. The technology is good, available, and affordable, but the subsidies are almost nothing compared to what oil, gas, nuclear, coal industries get. Might change if enough people get accurate information and ignore the naysayers. Perhaps alternative energy should be subsidized at the same level as fossil fuels and nukes, or get rid of all subsidies and see which technologies survive longest. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you. - Elbert Hubbard * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
Also, the evacuated tube solar collectors you can get now are much more efficient at extracting energy from the sun than pv collectors. They don't make electricity but they are great for home and hot water heating. I've seen them producing fairly hot water on a cloudy day. Check it out: http://www.sunmaxxsolar.com/evacuated-tube-solar-collectors.php b_s-wilk wrote: In the '80s, after we built our solar house, the nuclear power industry put out a series of expensive TV and full page magazine and newspaper ads with this message: Solar will be a wonderful source of energy in maybe 30 to 50 years, and until then, you can use clean nuclear power [US Council for Energy Awareness]. I'd sit in our 75 degree greenhouse on a sunny cold 15 degree winter day, watching those astroturf ads on TV. As a result people built more sparsely insulated 1950's style homes, ignored the solar industry and wasted $billions. I live in Maryland. We don't get much sun in the winter. The house is a passive solar design that cost around 3-5% more than neighboring homes. Our backup heat is propane. Since you probably have little direct involvement with the solar industry, it's not surprising that you would say that you need a sunny climate to use solar energy. It's being used in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where combined solar and super-insulation with air to air heat exchangers can reduce winter energy consumption by over 50%. Swedes also use solar ponds. Every house in the southern and southwestern United States could use solar for heating, cooling and hot water, but few do. Most buildings in the rest of the US could use passive solar and some form of super-insulation as retrofits, and especially in new construction, plus photovoltaics [but that usually requires subsidy]. The technology is good, available, and affordable, but the subsidies are almost nothing compared to what oil, gas, nuclear, coal industries get. Might change if enough people get accurate information and ignore the naysayers. Perhaps alternative energy should be subsidized at the same level as fossil fuels and nukes, or get rid of all subsidies and see which technologies survive longest. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
I would like to set up automatic file replication on a pre Time Machine Tiger G5 so as to provide a 2nd copy of all critical user data files on a separate but local hard drive. Any recommendations? Hopefully freeware. SuperDuper's sandbox mode does this, but that mode is only available with the paid version. Sandbox mode is intended to give you a throw-away copy of your software for doing development work. After you trash your Mac it quickly gives you another copy to wreck again. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
Betty I do not disagree with you. But I cannot afford to retrofit my house with Solar. What I would have to spend to get the savings that would pay off are not real numbers yet. If they did subsidize the installation and expense of it, it would make perfect sense. You mistake heat and sun. Most everyone in the northern hemisphere gets exposure to the Sun. I lived in Northern Ontario where -40C is not uncommon. However on those days the sun shone perfectly and clear. Problem is at the deflection it did not generate heat. But yes they could harness the sunlight to do a lot of good. One of the biggest problems is that building codes are woefully inadequate to do what you are calling for. Better insulation, better ergonomic construction, better layouts of house to use air flow etc. would make a huge difference in how houses use energy. My house is on a crawl space and the underside is not insulted at all. I plan on doing so, when I can afford it. I am still fixing all the crap that did not get done up to code to begin with when my house was built 6 years ago. (It is a nightmare) We need to get the home industry to build better green houses to begin with. We are talking locally about a new school, and SURPRISE they are talking about ecological construction. Again I say there are no easy answers it will take a lot of rethinking in the way we build, remodel, and consume. By the way affordable is in the eye of the beholder, What may be affordable to you is not to me. Stewart At 06:24 PM 2/13/2009, you wrote: Stewart, In the '80s, after we built our solar house, the nuclear power industry put out a series of expensive TV and full page magazine and newspaper ads with this message: Solar will be a wonderful source of energy in maybe 30 to 50 years, and until then, you can use clean nuclear power [US Council for Energy Awareness]. I'd sit in our 75 degree greenhouse on a sunny cold 15 degree winter day, watching those astroturf ads on TV. As a result people built more sparsely insulated 1950's style homes, ignored the solar industry and wasted $billions. I live in Maryland. We don't get much sun in the winter. The house is a passive solar design that cost around 3-5% more than neighboring homes. Our backup heat is propane. Since you probably have little direct involvement with the solar industry, it's not surprising that you would say that you need a sunny climate to use solar energy. It's being used in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where combined solar and super-insulation with air to air heat exchangers can reduce winter energy consumption by over 50%. Swedes also use solar ponds. Every house in the southern and southwestern United States could use solar for heating, cooling and hot water, but few do. Most buildings in the rest of the US could use passive solar and some form of super-insulation as retrofits, and especially in new construction, plus photovoltaics [but that usually requires subsidy]. The technology is good, available, and affordable, but the subsidies are almost nothing compared to what oil, gas, nuclear, coal industries get. Might change if enough people get accurate information and ignore the naysayers. Perhaps alternative energy should be subsidized at the same level as fossil fuels and nukes, or get rid of all subsidies and see which technologies survive longest. Betty Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
On Feb 13, 2009, at 7:45 PM, b_s-wilk wrote: One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating the collection points and transmitting the electricity. No, it's not true. You are thinking about renewable energy in a very narrow way. No, I am not. I am thinking about industrial scale industry production. Around 30% of all energy used in this country is wasted through lack of energy efficiency. Probably true. Efficiency is cheap. It's easy and doesn't require a much of a change in your lifestyle--energy meter, insulation, timers, smart switches, replace a broken water heater or refrigerator or AC with an efficient one; you're going to do it anyway, so get a good one and reduce your energy bill. Same for other appliances including transportation. Been there, done that where I can, will do that where I can not yet afford when I can. Increasing the availability and use of mass transportation where possible also saves energy. Sometimes, and sometimes at the cost of lost freedom and lost time. However one of the big misconceptions is that solar and wind have to be part of the power grid. They do if they are going to replace industrial capacity currently provided by fossil fuels. Passive solar doesn't at all. Try smelting or running electrified rail off passive solar. Photovoltaics can be but don't have to be unless you don't produce 100% of your own power. Which won't help folks living in dense cities where they can not produce their own power. The NIMBYs and CAVEs [citizens against virtually everything] are a small but very loud contingent and often can be tempted by the money they'll be saving. Offshore wind farms can be several miles out to sea where they can barely be seen, where the wind is steadier. Other wind farms are in the mountains, and on private farms where owners are paid rent by the turbine companies. And you still have to have transmission lines. if you are not consuming the energy produced on site. Turbines run slowly enough that they're not a significant danger to migrating birds according to recent reports on newer turbines. Individuals in remote locations can generate their own off-grid power. Agreed, and insufficient to our national needs. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Efficiency is cheap. You're right. I happen to be a bicycle commuter. In fact I don't even own an internal combustion powered vehicle. I've been car free for twenty years, and I don't miss it. It takes me ten minutes to get to work. No parking hassles or expenses, I park my bike in my office. Yes there's an art to doing this, but practice makes perfect. Of course it costs more to live in the city center but this is offset by low transportation costs. It IS possible to game the system in an ecologically and personally beneficial way. My lifestyle wouldn't (maybe) work for everyone, but I'll bet it would for some. I'm an American conservative with a European socialist lifestyle. Too bad I don't get a big bailout check for acting responsibly. I pay my bills and taxes, I'm kind to strangers, and I always try to give more than I take. I'm sure that there are many others that do the same. And I don't ask for much. Personally I'd settle for a nice pair of English dress shoes and a new preamplifier, as long as the Democrats are hell-bent on giving away my money. I figure that would about cover it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Solar Energy and Redefining history
By the way affordable is in the eye of the beholder, What may be affordable to you is not to me. Damn straight, Reverend. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
BTW - there appears to be a graphical interface open source product called Cronix. I have not used it as I am a command line kind of guy. Matthew On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Matthew Taylor wrote: If all you want is file replication use rsync (already part of the OS) scheduled with the OS X / UNIX cron function. Matthew On Feb 13, 2009, at 6:24 PM, db wrote: I would like to set up automatic file replication on a pre Time Machine Tiger G5 so as to provide a 2nd copy of all critical user data files on a separate but local hard drive. Any recommendations? Hopefully freeware. db * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
I hear you. I would love to bike to work. I also want my kids to have a house and property where they could to play in the woods and breath air relatively free of gasoline and diesel fumes. Avoiding drive by shootings was a plus as well. I made the choice in favor of my kids and live an hour by car from where I work by the back roads. Offer me a job with a comparable salary a 10 minute bike ride away and I am there. On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote: Efficiency is cheap. You're right. I happen to be a bicycle commuter. In fact I don't even own an internal combustion powered vehicle. I've been car free for twenty years, and I don't miss it. It takes me ten minutes to get to work. No parking hassles or expenses, I park my bike in my office. Yes there's an art to doing this, but practice makes perfect. Of course it costs more to live in the city center but this is offset by low transportation costs. It IS possible to game the system in an ecologically and personally beneficial way. My lifestyle wouldn't (maybe) work for everyone, but I'll bet it would for some. I'm an American conservative with a European socialist lifestyle. Too bad I don't get a big bailout check for acting responsibly. I pay my bills and taxes, I'm kind to strangers, and I always try to give more than I take. I'm sure that there are many others that do the same. And I don't ask for much. Personally I'd settle for a nice pair of English dress shoes and a new preamplifier, as long as the Democrats are hell-bent on giving away my money. I figure that would about cover it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Recommendation for OS X replicating software?
I'm using Bombich Carbon Copy Cloner at this moment. http://bombich.com/ * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
I made the choice in favor of my kids and live an hour by car from where I work by the back roads. Well, there are some compromises involved everywhere but you've got your priorities straight. I can do what I do because I'm single and have no kids (that I know of). My brother has a similar situation to yours and is if possible more conservative than either of us, he also has said that he doesn't see how a city lifestyle could work. Maybe a little bit stronger comments. The shootings have calmed down in my neighborhood, there was a bit of a gang war here for a while but it tapered off after a while, I don't think we've had a gun battle on the streets for some time, not since the late '90s anyway. The area has calmed down and gentrified considerably since then. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history
Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy usage. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended) into changing what we use as energy. Very large cities were created due to trade. These huge cities, due to modern transport are no longer necessary. They're just a remanent of the past that's struggling to hold on. How many cities are going broke trying to sustain their population and infrastructure? Bigger isn't always better. Didn't computers prove that? Also, industrial capacity is a bit of a misnomer. It's relevant if you hope to sustain the world with no change. But the world with no change in its' past structure is becoming less relevant everyday. We, as a country or world, didn't start using electricity or oil over night. It's going to take time, acceptance and a means of profitability for those who help to make it viable for the industrialized world as a whole. There have been many great ideas put forth over the years to help jump start this. There has been next to no $ put forth compared to what's been spent to keep the oil flowing. And the oil, as anyone can plainly see, is a finite resource. But like our economy is showing today, we love to put stuff off. Jeff M On Feb 13, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Matthew Taylor wrote: On Feb 13, 2009, at 7:45 PM, b_s-wilk wrote: One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not generate enough power from them. True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating the collection points and transmitting the electricity. No, it's not true. You are thinking about renewable energy in a very narrow way. No, I am not. I am thinking about industrial scale industry production. Around 30% of all energy used in this country is wasted through lack of energy efficiency. Probably true. Efficiency is cheap. It's easy and doesn't require a much of a change in your lifestyle--energy meter, insulation, timers, smart switches, replace a broken water heater or refrigerator or AC with an efficient one; you're going to do it anyway, so get a good one and reduce your energy bill. Same for other appliances including transportation. Been there, done that where I can, will do that where I can not yet afford when I can. Increasing the availability and use of mass transportation where possible also saves energy. Sometimes, and sometimes at the cost of lost freedom and lost time. However one of the big misconceptions is that solar and wind have to be part of the power grid. They do if they are going to replace industrial capacity currently provided by fossil fuels. Passive solar doesn't at all. Try smelting or running electrified rail off passive solar. Photovoltaics can be but don't have to be unless you don't produce 100% of your own power. Which won't help folks living in dense cities where they can not produce their own power. The NIMBYs and CAVEs [citizens against virtually everything] are a small but very loud contingent and often can be tempted by the money they'll be saving. Offshore wind farms can be several miles out to sea where they can barely be seen, where the wind is steadier. Other wind farms are in the mountains, and on private farms where owners are paid rent by the turbine companies. And you still have to have transmission lines. if you are not consuming the energy produced on site. Turbines run slowly enough that they're not a significant danger to migrating birds according to recent reports on newer turbines. Individuals in remote locations can generate their own off-grid power. Agreed, and insufficient to our national needs. Matthew * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// www.cguys.org/ ** * The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you. - Elbert Hubbard * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
