Science GlobalWarming - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming:
 Results 301 - 450 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
 Berkeley CSUA MOTD Match all Match any Histogram Relevance Most current Least current

 WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ http://csua.com/feed/
2018/05/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 5/25

 2006/3/28 [Science/GlobalWarming, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:42487 Activity:kinda low 3/28 A day or two later and the motd doesn't look much like the dans vs the world show anymore does it? Now it looks like the right-wing political trolls vs. the left-wing political trolls show. -dans \_ That must mean that you're overdue for a "snipe at tom" session or something. You sure you're feeling okay, dans? :P -mice \_ Point taken. \_ Please support your statement with facts. \_ The facts are self-evident. Please get a clue. -dans
 2006/3/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42475 Activity:nil 3/27 http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/27/radioactive.smuggling/index.html This is rather disconcerting news about US security.
 2006/3/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42406 Activity:moderate 3/24 Has anyone locked in prices for the Natural Gas? This "Energy Saving Corp" sales person visited my house yesterday asking me to lock in for 5 years. Last month price was $1.0 per thermal unit, and over the last two years, it varied from$0.6 to $1.2. Their plan is to have me lock in at$1.2 for 5 years, and they say Gas price is going to just go up and up. Anyone did this before? Recommendations? \_ How much do you like betting? This is basically a bet with their company that prices are going to be above/below $1.2. Is it a good bet? I don't know. Are you willing to research it? I bet they have--they've got a lot of money riding on it. You, on the other hand, only have a little money on it. It's also possible this is just a scam. --PM \_ If they realy believed gas was just going to go up and up, would they give you this deal? \_ perhaps from a gas producer perspective, they would want a more stable price so they can make the proper planning and investments, and for that they would sign futures contract with their customers, and the customers would then want to do so with their customers, and so on. \_ This screams "SCAM!" to me. You can't win. Let's say prices remain about your lock in number. Ok, nothing happens. Let's say prices drop like a rock and you're locked in at a much higher rate for *years*. You're screwed. Let's say prices sky rocket and this company is now forced to sell you product at less than their price so they lose money every time you use gas. They file for bankruptcy and you're back paying the same price as everyone else. You can't win. \_ I suppose if you really wanted a hedge against gas prices you could just buy gas futures. \_ I suspect his monthly/year gas usage isn't high enough to cover his costs/wins/losses either way by investing in gas futures. The company has done way more research than he possibly could and is certain gas prices are going to stay low enough they can make a profit off him, likely a very hefty profit. \_ Thanks for all your advice. One other consideration is that, perhaps this is irrational, but I find paying higher prices than everyone else more painful than paying higher prices with everyone else. The pain would also outweigh the joy I would get from paying a lower price than everyone else. Thanks again, you guys are great! \_ Wow. After a little looking it seems it is definitely a scam: (Not the company you mentioned but they're in trouble too) http://www.ontariotenants.ca/electricity/articles/2004/ch204e16.phtml  2006/3/18-20 [Health, Health/Men, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42310 Activity:moderate 3/18 Level 60 in World of Warcraft: http://tinyurl.com/qzl9e -John \_ Wow, that's somewhere between hilarious and creepy...not sure which yet. -mice \_ Ah, dorm life. There's reason why people want to move out after a little while. \_ Dude, I was gonna say the same thing. This is the exact kind of thing that drives people out of dense populated areas to live in the suburbs. I guess when you're young and stupid (<18) you wanted to make friends so you live in the dorms or something but then as you get older you realize that it's a pain to live so close to so many idiots.  2006/3/17-20 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42289 Activity:nil 3/17 Trolling for profit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060317/ap_on_hi_te/patent_trolling \_ If these people got their knees broken I'd call it justice. If I saw the CEO getting his teeth kicked in in a back alley, I would not call the cops.  2006/3/14-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42228 Activity:kinda low 3/14 "Global warming gases at highest levels ever: UN" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060314/ts_nm/environment_greenhouse_dc \_ And it will accelerate in the coming decades as we switch to more Carbon-heavy sources of energy like Coal, and burn vasts tracts of forest to plant "carbon-neutral" feedstocks for biofuels. Even if Europe and the United States get their act together (unlikely) and actually reduce their CO2 & greenhouse gas emissions that will be quickly undone by China & India's booming industry. \_ Why do we care? We've already been told that Global Warming is irreversible. Personally, I burn tires for warmth. -emarkp \_ CO2 is one of the global warming gases. Do your part to cut down on its production. Stop breathing. on its release. Stop breathing. \_ I think it would work better if you did, actually -- then we'd be left with one guy that gives a damn, and one fewer motd trolls. \_ But the point is, why should we care? Unless you have children or are under the age of ten by the time the shit really hits the fan we'll all be really old or dead. There also isn't much we can do about it. I think that we need to let technology take care of the problem or just live with the consequences. It's akin to caring about whether or not the Big One will hit the bay area. Nobody can really do anything about it, so most of us just don't care. It's unfortunately a cynical way to view global warming, but it is realistic. \_ ie, "I'm going to get mine because it's all about me, no matter who dies." \_ Ahhh, nihilism. \_ So in your moral framework, we should not care about it because it only affects our children? You suck. (Actually it is already starting to have effects and will continue within our lifetimes.) \_ I sure hpe it hurries up. Then I can turn off my space heater and save on my monthly electricity bill. \_ Just wait til you see your AC bill, fucker. \_ Surveys say 100 out of 100 scientists who depend on global warming fright for continued resarch funding say global warming will kill us all unless funding continues. \_ By this standard, we should never believe anything any scientists tell us. I'm sure that's not what you meant to imply, and you were just trolling. \_ By what standard? All scientists do *not* acquire funding through fear mongering. Most of them get funding by saying, "Hey I found this cool thing and if you give me more money, I can probably make something useful from it". I wasn't trolling. I think the global warming 'scientists' have a vested interest in fear mongering. Population explosions, global cooling, global warming, running out of [food, water, oil, various minerals, arable land, etc], and global warming is just the latest scare tactic for cash. The sky is not falling. \_ The sky might not be falling, but the sea (level) is already rising. \_ At .0004mm per year? Ok. I'm scared now. You got me. \_ guess you don't live in New Orleans \_ Actually it's 1-2mm per year for the past 100 years. -tom \_ Which might zoom up if say, all the ice on Greenland decides to melt. Everyone into the Hummer!  2006/3/13-14 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42208 Activity:nil 3/13 Okay, the Z Machine produced over 290 terawatts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine Please explain again why we can't store this output in some meaningful manner for re-use. \_ store it in what? Energon cubes? Centrifuges? \_ ZPMs. DUH! Don't you watch SG:Atlantis? \_ Exactly, use the fact that the sun will be experiencing increased solar flare activity, thus changing the gravitational constant near the outgoing wormhole, causing you to go back in time, whereby you can find an ancient and ask them how to do it. \_ Or you can do what I do, I just call out "Thor?! Are you out there?" and he pops in looking like his usual rubbery self. \_ Yeah, he's kind of like a benevolent Q from STNG. \_ But with less power, more needs, and a rubber face. \_ I think Oma is more like Q, only nicer. -stmg \_ Dude, all you need to do is to find an ancient repository of knowledge, d/l the details into your brain, build the storage device and then get Thor to restore your brain. \_ It's worth noting that while 290TW is huge, it only produces this output for a tiny fraction of a second, so the total energy released is not that great. In any case, the Z-machine is not a power generator. All that energy came from outside the system. \_ RTFA: "Z releases 80 times the world's electrical power usage for a few trillionths of a second. However, only a small amount of electricity is consumed for each test (equal to the usage of 100 houses for two minutes)." \_ Look up ultra capacitors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-capacitor  2006/3/12-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42197 Activity:nil 3/12 Oil spill in AK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4795866.stm  2006/3/11-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42189 Activity:moderate 3/11 GE may have figured out a cheaper way of making H2: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/ge_cuts_hydroge.php \_ I'm amazed the manufacturing of the aparatus has that much effect on the cost to generate the hydrogen. \_ Umm.. how much energy does 1kg of H have vs 1 gal of gasoline? I would suspect the gasoline has much more. \_ Answered my own question, H has a LOT more, like 5x. http://tinyurl.com/qpmp6 (uaf.edu) http://www.uaf.edu/energyin/webpage/pages/energy_storage/hydrogen.htm \_ Weird, I googled for this and most of the info I got suggested that 1kg H2 has about the same energy content as gasoline: 1kg H2 energy content: 120-140kJ 1gallon gas energy content: 130kJ 1kg H2 energy content: 120-140MJ 1gallon gas energy content: 130MJ \_ These should be MJ, not kJ. (for both substances) \_ Sorry, I ment to change from k to M. Thanks for catching this. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/facts_figures.html http://tinyurl.com/dtymn (phy.syr.edu) http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html \_ guys, both links are very clear: H2 has ~ 3x or higher energy content vs. gasoline by weight, but in terms of volume, it has issues \_ this is why i don't believe in hydrogen economy. We needs just bite the bullet and save gas bits by bits. \_ Yeah, see, there's thingy some people call 'technology'. By applying this, this, 'technology', people are often able to solve problems in surprising ways.... \_ there is a thing call knowledge, which separate fantacy from reality. If you want to get hydrogen competitively TODAY, you can only obtain it from natural gas, coal, or other form of fussel fuel. Rest of these things are as interesting as human cloning: vast potential, but far far away down the road. \_ great sustainable plan you got there. \_ Funny, this is the reason H looks good to me. If they can really produce it for$3 a kilo, it will eventually be cheaper than gas. I'm curious about the cost breakdown though. What electricity cost are they assuming, etc? \_ If you assume the above numbers, corrected to MJ instead of kJ, and convert to kWH, then divide into three dollars, you get 8.3 cents per kWH. \_ Why would you compare energy/mass to energy/weight? How is that meaningful? \_ The density of gas is ~ 0.73 g/ml, so gas has an energy density of ~ 47 MJ/kg, which is about 3x smaller than H2. \_ You can pour 1kg of gasoline into a bucket, and use it. You can't do that with a 1kg of Hydrogen, which is the whole issue with hydrogen.
 2006/3/10-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42181 Activity:kinda low 3/10 Why the hell hasn't fax technology died yet? \_ 'cause not everyone has a scanner on their computer? \_ 'cause not everyone has a scanner on their computer? \_ Because not every document is electronic. It's more convenient to use a fax machine when you're dealing with paper. \_ if every notebooks has built-in slot-scanner, i think it will help the demise of fax. \_ The fax isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The easiest way to get a pile of papers from me to you quickly over a long distance is dropping the stack into a fax machine, punching your fax number in and coming back in an hour. And what is a fax machine other than a scanner with a phone/modem attached, anyway? How is a notebook based sheet at a time slot scanner going to help anyone who uses a fax on a daily basis? (Namely, businesses large and small). \_ That's it though... the modem thing is outdated. It should just be transmitted through an email. There's no reason that can't be done just as easily, using a batch-scanner with an associated program. A coworker was telling me how his mortgage company has no internet at all and just fax machines. So they use this 3rd party that takes their fax and then forwards a pdf to an email address (using character recognition on the cover sheet to find the email address). But they have no way to get it back except fax. It's just stupid. \_ The modem is not out dated. It requires only a functional phone system without email server, dns, ISP, and provides confirmation of receipt which email does not do. Just because your friend's company is stupid does not mean one of the technologies they use is stupid. I'll bet your friend's company has pens, too. Are pens stupid? Faxes are cheap. The infrastructure is in place all over the world. What would your much more expensive and less reliable system get anyone other than slashdot style kewlness? Long live the fax! \_ The problem is that most of the posters assume fax is useful everywhere. The fax is useful in places where there is no reliable internet (i.e. cost or shitty POTS service.) There is no reason I can think of why people still fax shit in the rest of the world. -John \_ are you referring to the technology (the how) or the idea of sending fascimiles of documents (the goal), whether it be by fax machine or via scanner+email/web/etc? Signatures still rule in the legal world for most documents -- acceptance of digital signatures (DSS etc) is not widespread yet. \_ A client of mine does a lot of regulatory compliance docs with signatures. They have a system for doing digital signatures which is accepted and legally binding (don't ask me how), but it is extremely clunky, so they revert to scanned signatures most of the time. I suspect it's more of an issue of their cruddy implementation, though. -John
 2006/3/10-13 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42175 Activity:nil 3/10 New way to make Hyrdogen from water: http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4553.html \_ Still in the very early stages of development, but very cool. I wonder how cost effective it will be. \_ Wow! It looks like a combo of the working parts of a temperature wheel with proven hydrogen/oxygen splitting tech. That's pretty cool.
 2006/3/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42157 Activity:nil 3/9 World largest Bio-diesel plant to open in Indiana: http://www.in.gov/serv/presscal?PF=gov2&Clist=1_3_4_6_11_16_61&Elist=85999 \_ If a significant portion of the cars out there were bio-diesel we would be up to our armpits in soot. That stuff is filthy. \_ buckminsterfullerene! yay
 2006/3/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42106 Activity:low 3/6 I've got 4 identical 300W halogen lights I bought in the mid 90s before the energy crisis and I don't use them anymore. Are there any reasons to keep them, and do people actually use them nowadays? Ebay or trash? \_ When I tried to take mine to Goodwill, they wouldn't take it because they said they were fire hazards. \_ I think Home Depot stops selling them years ago for the same reason. I still have two at home and I like them. They are very bright. \_ No, you can still buy them; they just have big protective metal grates over the top of them now which cast ugly shadows on the ceiling. On the other hand, the modern CFL torches are _almost_ as bright, don't heat up the whole room, and use much less power (75W vs. 300W). They don't have that yellowish color we've all come to love from incandescents, but all-in-all they're a win. Some of them are even dimmable over a limited range. --dbushong \- if they hae dimmers, why cant you just use them at lower power. that is what i have been doing for years. they do hum sometimes. \_ If you want dim lighting, then use a dimmed CFL, that will still use less power than a dimmed Halogen. They're just plain more efficient lighting. --dbushong
2018/05/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 5/25

 2006/3/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42084 Activity:nil 2/16 Consequences for violating Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: more economic/nuclear collaboration with USA http://tinyurl.com/rrbfw hmm... and why we are bitching about Iran again? \_ From a "moral superiority" standpoint? There's no reason we should. From a "don't be a dumbass" standpoint? Because they'd actually USE the nukes on us or someone we care about. \_ There are no indication that they would. All the sabre rattling is only help the conservative clerks to hold the power... consider that something like 40% of population is 35 yr or younger and relatively pro-western, don't you think our entire policy toward Iran ever since 1954 is kind of fucked up? \_ I question the wisdom of this on the grounds that, hey, India has one of the fastest growing Muslim populations in the world, don't they? Oh but that's right, Islam is a religion of peace and most of the Islamic world is peaceful, like... um... \_ majority of people in India pratice Hindu, not islam. One don't eat beef, one don't eat pork... if that help you to remember. (yes, i know, that is an over generalization on Hindu's part, but I need to start from somewhere to get those people educated).
 2006/3/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42045 Activity:nil 3/1 What is better for top coat, acrylic or polyurethane? I'm looking for something that's easy to paint and moderately durable. Which one of these is water and oil based? Thanks. \_ Silk, to match your top hat? \_ it might help if you say what you're trying to do. polyurethane is often alcohol-based--i've never used the water- or oil-based ones, so can't say anything about them.
 2006/2/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41952 Activity:high 2/21 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush Bush to support renewable energy. He's not such a bad guy afterall -environmentalist \_ are you dumb or what? he uses this small gesture to disguise the fact that he is pushing for 1. nuclear power 2. provide all sort of tax break / environmental regulation waivers to coal/oil industry. \_ why don't you just admit that you hate Republicans you hippie king \_ i just don't hate people who can careless about environment and then blaming China and India for everything. \_ nukular power is good -environmentalist \_ where are you going dump the waste? we will soon running out of Indian Reservations to dump them :p \_ dump it into the ocean \_ better dumped somewhere and contained than pumped into the atmosphere like our other current energy sources. \_ it can not be contained. that is the problem. those concrete canister last about 50-60 years before it start to leak... and the half life of those materials is... 10,000 years? There are ways to cut down emissions. But it requires CONSERVATION... If you are not willing to change your lavish life style, then, you are not an environmentalist. \_ You understand what halflife means right? Not the video game. Something with a long half life is going to emit very little radiation. If the half life is long enough, the radiation emitted is so low it will be less than the background radiation we're born into and live in from the natural environment. I'm not afraid of something with a 10,000 year halflife. It's the short stuff that will poison and kill you. You need to understand what you're talking about before going off about what is safe and not. Feel free to dump the 10,000 year stuff in my back yard. \_ Bury it on the moon! Space:1999 10 years late! \_ What's wrong with pushing for nuclear power? Nuclear power is better than most of the other alternatives; its main problem is Cold War-era paranoia. \_ waste. There is no safe way to dump the waste and right now it's being stored right at the Nuclear Power Plants everywhere. When people talk about nuclear energy being "cheaper," I often wonder if they taken account of the Yaka Mountain facilities and the cost of transporting waste to that location. \_ What is this Yaka of which you speak? ;-) Anyway, the planet is a big place. There are lots of safe places, they're just hard/expensive to get to. \_ due to long half-life, almost nowhere is safe except earth's core. \_ Due to long half life, almost anywhere is safe. But since we know it isn't safe it therefore must have a short halflife. Anything unsafe has a short half life by definition. The earth's core... indeed! \_ 1. If people weren't so paranoid about weaponization, we could use breeder reactors which would be much less wasteful. 2. Other conventional sources of power have waste too. \- i think the problem assessing nuclear power costs is the widely differing views on how small the probability of "something really bad" happening is ... since the govt rather than private insurance will kick in if something goes drastically wrong. you may be able to detemine say coal fired power plan will cost $x in enviro damange and health costs and increased mortality at emission level y which costs$z. but in the case of nuclear power there are some reasonably bounded costs for say security and waste disposal but part of the cost is the expectation value of p(really_bad_event) * cost(RBE) ... and i suspect there isnt a lot of agreement of p(RPE), especially if it is isnt a lot of agreement of p(RBE), especially if it is affect by human motivation and not just accident probability. OK TNX. \_ Uranium supplies are not infinite. Breeder/Thorium reactors are pipe dreams and no commercial versions exist. Reprocessing fuel means lots of plutonium floating around. Also the fallout (pun intended) from one going boom is really really bad, unlike coal fired plants which have a very bad, but fixed and relatively well known environmental impact.
 2006/2/18-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41926 Activity:nil 2/18 Since 1990, the UK has cut greenhouse emissions by 13 percent while growing its economy by 40 percent. An interview with Sir David King. http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/02/17/griscom-little/index.html \_ The last thing I read said CO2 had risen about 12% since they had committed to Kyoto and they'll miss their 2012 mark by miles. Maybe they'd had a huge turn around in emissions in the last 6 months, go Britain! \_ To me the most interesting bit of this interview is his endorsement of nuclear power. Is this becoming more of a favored option?
 2006/2/18-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41917 Activity:nil 2/18 Back in 2000 I bought a few 23W energy efficient bulbs that output 100W, and a few 16W bulbs that output 60W. The (output/energy used) ratio was about 4. Today I bought a few more bulbs from Walmart... 7W bulbs that output 40W, which has the (output/energy used) ratio of over 5. Are new bulbs getting more and more efficient? \_ no. \_ The "equivalent to XX watts" is an estimate by correlating an average N watt incandescent bulb to the number of lumens it outputs. It's mostly just rounding error, I'd guess. It would be nice if they'd start putting lumens in bigger numbers, but I guess we've got as much chance of switching to that as switching to m and km. \_ is your understanding of these bulbs that they put out more energy than they take in? please give me the address of the magical unicorn that gave these to you. -ali. \_ Holy cow. You are such a pedantic prick. And your tone makes you sound like a wanna be smart ass and above all else, a big jerk. Please work on your tone and personality. You still haven't gotten a PhD not because you're not smart, but because people don't like to work with fucking pricks. \_ obGoogle, looks like he graduated. \_ I'm the op and the answer is, obviously, no. You put in X, you get out X. The problem with regular incandescent bulbs is that much of the X is useless to you. I define usefulness as viewable spectrum, and uselessness as heat, UV, etc. Energy efficient bulbs have higher usefulness over uselessness ratio. \_ Duh, they're from the North Pole. Everyone knows unicorns have nothing to do with infinite energy. It's an elf thing. \_ Probably. When we switch to LED bulbs the multiple will be even better. All this shows you is how amazingly inefficient incandescent bulbs are in producing usable light. \_ do LEDs have the obnoxious flicker or any other negatives you get from fluorescents?
 2006/2/18-20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41916 Activity:nil 2/18 I just replace a bunch of regular bulbs with energy efficient bulbs. Now I have a bunch of old bulbs that I don't ever plan to use. What is a non-wasteful thing to do with them? \_ give them to someone or put them away so you're not in the dark when the new ones break. \_ Break them open with a hammer and smoke meth with them. \_ do this: http://www.cockeyed.com/science/lightbulb/bulb.html
 2006/2/8 [Recreation/Dating, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41760 Activity:kinda low 2/7 God, I'm so love sick I'm miserable. What to do to get my mind off? \_ if you want to get her off your mind you don't love her. \_ good troll. Surf for other trolls. \_ You need to talk to DER FURIOUS. \_ Concentrate on all the pain and suffering that can come out of a relationship gone bad. Think about how much time and money and energy this could cost you. \_ Ask her/him/it out. Solves the problem one way or another. -dans \_ This is as good as it will ever get, and it can only go down hill from here. Walk away.
 2006/2/6-7 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41714 Activity:nil 2/6 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin "In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang..." \_ You're saying the big bang thing isn't a theory? A lot of *very* smart people in the field would disagree with you. \_ You're ignoring the context of the order. It's very clear that he meant it not as scientists define "theory" but in the "it's just a theory" ID-crazed-uninformed-nutjob manner \_ Perhaps. But Deutsch is a Dubya appointee, so obviously the edit is motivated by politics and not science.
 2006/2/4-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41699 Activity:kinda low 2/3 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/international/europe/04iran.html "... the dispute was apparently resolved after the Americans backed down and accepted compromise language, an American official said." \_ Yes! Now Iran is going to the UN Security Council and they're going to pass a resolution in a year or two. That'll scare em in Tehran! Woot! Ok, now that the Iran nuke situation has been resolved, what else can our World Government take care of? Maybe Darfur will be next. \_ Just out of curiosity, what would you do? N.b. I don't have a realistic answer myself. It's a bit more complex than Darfur or Rwanda, where a couple thousand Marines could have (and should have) sorted things out (granted, at the risk of pissing off China in Sudan's case) but still, I'm curious. -John \_ At this point, I'm honestly not sure what can be done that will result in a positive outcome without large scale death involved. I think it might be too late. Relying too much on a bunch of psychos to oil the world's economy was stupid was the get-go which will make economic sanctions impossible to enforce and meaningless even if they could be. They're already diplomatically isolated and really don't have a reason to care if the rest of the world cuts them off complete in that regard. So without economic or diplomatic leverage, the only choices left seem to be some sort of military action, be it a full scale invasion or trying to get a coup going or hope for a miracle. I don't think there's enough support for a real coup that would benefit the west, full scale invasion is very ugly for many obvious reasons, and a prayer-based foreign policy initiative is going to lead directly to Iran becoming a nuclear power with a lot of oil money and long range missiles and several public statements from their pseudo-elected President that wiping Israel off the map would be a jolly good idea. Even if you agree that nuking Israel would be fun, the response is going to devastate the area and possibly lead to a world wide economic collapse. If I was Israel, I'd certain target the oil rich areas with nukes, along with Mecca, Medina, and a few other places that would stir up more shit than the world has ever imagined. So, to answer your question, I think it comes down to full scale invasion or complete FUBAR in the region which screws the rest of the world too.
 2006/2/2-4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast] UID:41670 Activity:nil 2/2 For those interested in the http://latimes.com "about 10% [of oil imports are from the Middle East]" vs. the doe.gov link, according to this other doe.gov link from the the http://factcheck.org URL, it's very likely that the L.A. Times reporter should have written "about 10% of domestic oil consumption depends on imports from countries from the Middle East", as someone else wrote. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_15.pdf The math works out about right with the "60.0%" net imports of petroleum figure from the above PDF. I don't want to go through the math because the ~ 22% number from yesterday was crude oil, while the PDF is for petroleum (crude oil + refined petroleum + whatever) and the 60.0% is for net imports (includes U.S. exports I suppose). Are you asleep yet?
 2006/2/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41657 Activity:nil 2/1 Never mind folks, you can forget about the energy discussion. "Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." http://csua.org/u/evb
 2006/2/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41642 Activity:nil 2/1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_competitiveness With 2/3 dollar going to companies that do research, I will ask again. What are some research stocks that would rise as a result of Bush's new initiatives? Again, I don't give a damn about good/bad Bush's policies, I just care about how this affects me as an investor. Thanks. \_ buy XOM, BP, CVX. The oil companies will all have to figure out how to make money if petroleum consumption decreases. \_ If you want to make money keep holding the oil companies. As supplies dwindle, profits will go through the roof. A much better investment than alternate energy research. Try: SU, CNQ. \_ CVX and COP are still very cheap. Other oil stocks I own like PBR, SU, OXY have appreciated a lot already, but may be buys on dips. SU is alternative fuel (canadian oil sands). PBR is brazilian company with expertise on deep sea drilling, and has been aggressively and successfully adding to its reserves, but it is a little overpriced currently. DESC is an alternative energy stock. I rode it from 3 to 7 in like 3 months by pure luck, and it is now 10 plus. The game may be a little late now, but who knows.
 2006/1/31-2/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41628 Activity:low 1/31 "Bush offered a proposal aimed at ending U.S. dependence on foreign oil." http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/bush.sotu/index.html Uh oh. I hope the oil execs don't get too pissed and do a JFK. Anyways, Bush vowed to increased R&D by 22% to use alternative energy. What are some research company stocks I should buy tomorrow? Please respond ASAP before 8AM EST. Thanks. \_ He's offered a "plan to end dependence on foreign oil" in every SOTU of his presidency. We've gone from a little over half of our oil coming from foreign sources to 2/3 in that time. \_ They give $500 mil to the ethanol people and call that alternative energy research even though it's bullshit. (So... ADM?) \_ 22% increase in DOE clean energy research is still pretty much nothing. Coal-fired plants and ethanol? Sounds like the same old same old. -tom \- i dont think it is "nothing". theDoE has been ramping up energy research for more than a year now. lots of people are being sucked into "solving the energy crisis" from other fields [like director chu, jay keasling, for two local people]. they already saw the funding writing on the wall going back at least a year and have stated that is their big initiative [as computational science, gene sequencing, nanotechnology etc have been in the recent past]. the reseach program has broadened a lot beyond airy-fairy plasma research, burying nuclear waste in yucca mtn. \_ Looking at the budgets at http://www.energy.gov/about/budget.htm, all the programs Bush talks about don't add up to$1 billion. So we're talking about $200 million at most, or three orders of magnitude less than the cost of the Iraq debacle. The reason he said 22% instead of giving the dollar amount is because the dollar amount is so paltry. (Overall DOE budget is$24 billion, with the majority of that being nuclear cleanup and weapons programs). -tom \_ Bullshit. Show me the labs. Or the budget items. I also work at a national lab, and I say you're talking out of your ass. \_ Remember the 2003 SOTU? Remember the "hydrogen" initiative? \- see e.g. http://www.lbl.gov/solar note: i am not saying this is a state of the union initiative. it pre-dates the speech tonight. i am saying in govt science funding community and other people in scientific leadership positions this has become a bigger priority. i certainly wouldnt be surprised if the BUSCHO initiative was pork to oil/car/agri industries. see also http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director note all of his talks there deal with energy or science educ and not say optics. \_ People in "scientific leadership positions" are simply not listened to by the people who control the money. Why do I say this? Because I work in a field that is largely concerned with the interaction of photons and electrons-- nanoelectronics--and no one, repeat:no one is getting any money in my field to do solar research. The top priority is quantum computing by far, with NASA detector research next down. We're spending hundreds of millions on quantum computing, it's totally dominating as a priority in solid state and atomic physics right now. How the FUCK is this a higher priority than energy? I don't know, but it is. \- ok, i have been a bit surprised at how much of this is going to bio and chem people rather than material science/solid state physics etc. but that may in part be some of this is driven by carbon management and environmental factors rather than energy production in the narrow sense [plasma or building better nuke reactors etc]. i am not saying this is a "manhattan project" or a tidal wave, but i think there is definitely a detectable wave in the area of energy securty with an eye to medium horizon less dep on oil rather than just global warming. between the enviro factors and the dependence factor i think the impeduts to do soemthign has gone beyond the tree huggers. \_ Oh, yeah, I'll agree with you that it's gone far beyond tree huggers, but I think the private sector is where the action is, and that the gov't is still not doing enough right now. I also have my own personal axe to grind, since I think QC research is a bit retarded. \- re: private industry: arguably the barrier to the private solution are indirect subsidies to the oil indstryy [in the large ... including things the the govt dredging channels so oil can be moved on ships etc] ... so if consumers faced a more honest cost for oil, that demand stumuli would be more effective than minor amounts of research funding. [i dont have a sense if nuclear is also indirectly subsidized by the govt not requiring private firms to fully account for risk, or waste disposal costs, but i would expect it is]. BTW, i frankly think conservation is silly. that just keeps things cheep for the non-conservers. that's roughly analogous to "if you think taxes are too low, feel free to send the govt some extra money". QC research isnt as retarded as sending people to mars/moon etc. \_ I agree with you on all points. Have you ever read Cradle to Cradle or Natural Capitalism? \- no, i've just heard some talk by that ALOVINS fellow. to go back to foreign policy and energy policy for a moment, i think an interesting foreign policy driver will be china and maybe india's apparoach to locking up bilateral energy deals rather than the global mkt for energy approach the US has sort of championed. it has been done in the past on a small scale [like my parent built a LNG plant in ACEH PROVINCE with japanese money in exchange for some kind of prefer- ential sales deal to japan] but i am wondering if the US is going to decide oil nations are not "allowed" to make those kinds of "futures contracts". \_ NASA's entire budget has been raided to send people to the moon. Science (includes earth science) and technology have been hurt the most. This manned spaceflight directive is proving to be a disaster. However, let's not kid ourselves. All the real money goes to the DoD and DOE. We can't spend money on research and technology when we are spending all we have in Iraq. There's your energy policy right there: go take oil from the Middle East at any cost. By the way, a lot of solar energy research is done by NASA for obvious reasons.
 2006/1/29-31 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance/Investment] UID:41589 Activity:nil 1/28 Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change http://csua.org/u/etm
 2006/1/28-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41587 Activity:nil 1/28 http://zfacts.com/p/60.html
 2006/1/26 [Science/GlobalWarming, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:41545 Activity:moderate 69%like:41535 1/25 [Why is Furious censored? Restored, at the top no less. And you should really learn to delete better. You're wiping out whole chunks of unrelated posts along with this. The odd thing is, the more you censor, the more this gets restored at the top, thus ensuring it will stick around longer.] Furious MOTD guy here again. I only masturbated 3 times today. Oh wait I forgot about #4, in the CEO's office after he went home. I came home and looked at link:tinyurl.com/apac2 \_ It's gonna suck when you're 38 and you're balls are all worn out. \_ your \_ Is that possible? They seem to be working pretty well! \_ Actually, balls are a "if you don't use it you lose it thing", not a "you'll wear it out" thing. \_ I think you should get together with chicom troll and motd boob guy and have a debate. \_ Why would I want to have a debate with him? OTOH I enjoy his URLs. -- motd boob guy \_ You guys could discuss masturbation technique, and whether it is better to masturbate to pictures of western or superior chinese breeding. \_ Seriously, don't you sort of... ache after a while? I call BS on the CEO thing though. \_ gee, you're perceptive. -tom \_ I was working late and he left early. \_ Why would you want to masturbate in a guy's office? I once masturbated outside my busty petite HR's office late night, shot my load on the door handle and let it dry up. The next day she came to work and opened the door with her bare hand. \_ Same reason ass pennies exist. \_ Nice! A slimmer tummy would be even better. \_ Why Furious Masturbator will inherit the earth. 'In bat species noted for female monogamy, males have small testes and big brains; in bat species noted for female promiscuity, males have testicles five times as big, but with smaller brains. Testes in one species are 8.5 percent of the male's body weight. Reason for big testicles: If a female is taking sperm from you and another guy, the best way to pass on your genes instead of his is to deliver more sperm. (This is why chimps have testicles "many times larger than those of gorillas.") Reason for small brains: Male bats that spent their energy making sperm beat out the ones that spent their energy thinking. Researchers' conclusion: "Size does matter."' http://www.slate.com/id/2134651 BTW, testes 8.5% of body weight are some pretty big and dense balls. \_ 17lb balls on a 200lb guy.
 2006/1/26 [Science/GlobalWarming, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:41535 Activity:high 69%like:41545 1/25 [Why is Furious censored? Restored, at the top no less.] Furious MOTD guy here again. I only masturbated 3 times today. Oh wait I forgot about #4, in the CEO's office after he went home. I came home and looked at link:tinyurl.com/apac2 \_ It's gonna suck when you're 38 and you're balls are all worn out. \_ Is that possible? They seem to be working pretty well! \_ I think you should get together with chicom troll and motd boob guy and have a debate. \_ Why would I want to have a debate with him? OTOH I enjoy his URLs. -- motd boob guy \_ You guys could discuss masturbation technique, and whether it is better to masturbate to pictures of western or superior chinese breeding. \_ Seriously, don't you sort of... ache after a while? I call BS on the CEO thing though. \_ gee, you're perceptive. -tom \_ I was working late and he left early. \_ Why would you want to masturbate in a guy's office? I once masturbated outside my busty petite HR's office late night, shot my load on the door handle and let it dry up. The next day she came to work and opened the door with her bare hand. \_ Same reason ass pennies exist. \_ Nice! A slimmer tummy would be even better. \_ Why Furious Masturbator will inherit the earth. 'In bat species noted for female monogamy, males have small testes and big brains; in bat species noted for female promiscuity, males have testicles five times as big, but with smaller brains. Testes in one species are 8.5 percent of the male's body weight. Reason for big testicles: If a female is taking sperm from you and another guy, the best way to pass on your genes instead of his is to deliver more sperm. (This is why chimps have testicles "many times larger than those of gorillas.") Reason for small brains: Male bats that spent their energy making sperm beat out the ones that spent their energy thinking. Researchers' conclusion: "Size does matter."' http://www.slate.com/id/2134651 BTW, testes 8.5% of body weight are some pretty big and dense balls.
 2006/1/3-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41221 Activity:low 1/3 No, really? Iran developing Nuclear Weapons and ballistic missiles. http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677542,00.html?gusrc=rss \_ Okay, we have a "55-page report" with no title and no source, with exactly one sentence and one phrase excerpted in quotes. Not saying that Iran doesn't want the bomb, but this sourcing is really weak. \_ It's the guardian, what do you expect? Actually, I recall some one *vigorously* defending the guardian here a year or two ago as the be-all end-all of the highest quality journalism including a url to their "prizes we won because we're great journalists" page. Anyway, most journalists wouldn't know good journalism if it bit them on the ass. \_ Speaking of good journalism, go see "Good Night, and Good Luck." Highly recommended. \_ During the runup to the Iraq war the Guardian was basically the only English language newspaper of any repute whatsover doing the serious work of investigating Bush and Blair's (bogus) claims about Iraq. I think they deserve kudos for that.
 2005/12/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41108 Activity:high 12/21 http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10975.shtml The Native Americans who live in ANWR want drilling there. And it's supposed to be their land. \_ And if our history's taught us anything, it's that the Native Americans make excellent choices about what to do w/ their land. \_ Uh? What? When or how exactly uh... wtf are you talking about? \_ He's probably talking about Indian Gaming. \_ Then he has no idea what he's talking about. \_ You misspelled "Some of the Native Americans." There are two tribes there, one of which initially opposed drilling and now supports it, and one of which still opposes it. -tom \- in general i think a lot of liberals are cowed by conservatives saying "are you saying group X is stupid and doesnt know what is in their own best interests?" ... i think liberals would often be wise not to fall for this and say "yes, people do often make dumb decisions for themselves either via ignorance or weakness or lazyness etc". \_ Exactly why direct democracy initiatives in California are such a failure. \- well i think there are other factors at play there [single issue voters, persistent, disinformation etc] but i dont have time to write more about that now.--psb \_ how are they a failure? however in this case there is another argument which is the dilution factor. the benefits of ANWR drilling "amortized" over everone in the US is trivial but if the locals [indians or alaskans] are bought off [which they are] then even if it is "in their backyard" [so maybe they pay 10x the "cost"] it may make sense to be in favor since they may reap 100x the benefits. if there were a national referendum on ANWR drilling how much would you ell your vote for? $25? (my personal position on ANWR has more to do with the terms of selling national endowments to private interests rather than "oooh, nature must not be harmed." so i think about it in the same way as water subsidies to farmers or western grazing rights to Big Cattle, or how mining rights are granted, frequency auctions etc.) --psb \_ Oh, you mean the Gwich'in? They can drill on other parts of their land and have nice checks rolling in that the Inupiat don't. \_ As far as state politics goes, part of the point here is that *everyone* who lives in Alaska has checks rolling in every year from oil money(actually interest on money set aside in the 70's oil boom). The majority of Alaskans of all races are in favor of drilling for that reason. Alaskans who are willing to go against their economic interests on this issue are a few local natives, and the liberal population who mostly live in Juneau, Anchorage, and a few hippie towns on the Kenai peninsula. I should probably mention that I'm from Juneau and oppose drilling, although my personal reasons are closer to psb's than to that of the typical environmentalist. \_ How big are the checks? It can't be that much. Does everyone who lives there qualify? \_ It's about a grand a year for every man, woman, and child. So for a big family living out in the bush, that can make a big difference. And don't forget there are no state sales or income taxes, and they want to keep it that way. One thing I've wondered about is whether it's more profitable in the long run to pump out the oil, sell it, put the money in a fund(they call it the PFD) and invest that fund as they have done, or to leave it there until the price goes crazy, *then* pump it. \_ thanks, that's what I was looking for. \- two things: 1. the issue is the marginal increase in the checks if ANWR drilling foes through, not the absolute size of the checks 1. the issue is the marginal increase in the checks (benefits) if ANWR drilling foes through, not the absolute size of the checks(benefits). 2. the benefits are not just caputured by the size of the checks ... you also have to factor in perhaps higher level of state services provided, what the state taxes would be otherwise etc. the state taxes would be otherwise i.e. paying$10k in state taxes and getting a fund check for $12k vs having no state taxes and getting a check for$2k. \_ I know someone who lived up in the ANWR area, teaching in one of the villages. My impression from him is that both the native and white local population are bitterly divided over the issue. I think he said that both natives and whites are sort of 50/50. \_ Nice overwrite dumbass. \_ Did you read George Will's awesome editorial saying that we should all be for drilling in ANWR because environmentalism == Communism? - danh \_ No, but I doubt anyone would say, "We should drill in XYZ because otherwise the communist will win!" as you describe it. \_ George Will wrote an editorial saying, "We must drill or the communists will win!"? Unlikely. \_ http://tinyurl.com/csqgr - danh \_ the bigger issue is energy independence. I remember American Science Foundation had a study saying that if we increase our automobile's fuel efficiency by 15%, we would save twice as much oil as Anwr's reserve in the span of couple years. \_ Why not do both? Conservation alone only delays the inevitable. Conservation by definition doesn't create new sources of anything. So with conservation we push this decision back a few years and then what? Also, you can only eek so much fuel efficiency from a vehicle. There are still some basic physical laws we need to follow re: mass, energy, heat loss, acceleration, etc. \_ In other, totally unrelated, news, congressional budget cuts to lead to layoffs of 100 scientists at the National Renewable Energy Lab http://csua.org/u/een [Rocky Mountain News] "In fiscal 2006, Congress cut the Department of Energy's budget for all renewable energy programs by more than 35 percent." Amazing. \_ Blah, as if they're the only people who got cut. The budget is public. Go see who else got cut to ribbons. \_ Posting again because someone didn't like reality: All sorts of DOE budgets got cut. The budget is public. Go look up who else got axed. The RE guys weren't a special target like you imply. \_ I implied nothing of the kind. \_ Then there should be nothing amazing about some particular program getting a cut. \_ Really? And if it were the Marine Corps, right before a major ground war, how would you feel then? This is a national security issue. \_ Uh oh, you're not about to go off about the Peak Oil thing, are you? \_ I implied nothing of the kind, you fucking twat. What would your reaction be if they laid off, say, ten percent of the senior officers in the Marine Corps right now? This is a national security issue, and congress just doesn't seem to get that. And why should they, when their job is to represent morons like you? \_ PEEK OIL!!!!!1!1!!!
 2005/12/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Electric] UID:41064 Activity:kinda low 12/17 Has anyone used a led lightbulb like this? How bright is it compared to a regular light blub? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000B8YY3A \_ That's LED, not led. Anyways, I really don't understand this fascination with energy saving bulbs. In a typical home, lighting uses less than 15% of the total electricity. Most goes to creating/removing heat (AC, frig). What is the point of spending money on expensive light bulbs that'll only cut energy cost by 5%? \_ A 100W equivalent compact fluourescent saves you something like $30 over the life of the bulb, IIRC. Why would you not want to do that? They also produce much much less heat, which will save on cooling costs. Percentages are great, but money is money. --dbushong \_ Replacing bulbs in ceilings is a chore? \_ I don't have cooling problems. I want my place warmer. Would you think I'd be better off over all using these bulbs and then turning the heat up more or leaving the heat lower and keeping my regular bulbs? \_ Your logic applies in winter, but not in summer. \_ Do you heat with electric or gas? \_ Because replacing bulbs in ceilings is a chore? \_ Cutting back 15% would mean we wouldn't have to drill in ANWR \_ According to cyberguys' web page, it outputs 32 lumens and is equivalent only to a 15W incandescent: http://csua.org/u/ecv \_ Umm, the one at cyberguys's is 18 LED version and the one at Amazon is 36 LED version from a differernt company, even. \_ Oops. Wrong one. http://csua.org/u/ecw 55 lumens and 25W (which isn't even double the 18 LED version, go figure). How do you know it's a different company? The Amazon page doesn't list the manufacturer; SmartHome is a retailer, and it looks the same to me. \_ 25W? I can't even find the floor with 25W. --old n blind \_ Make sure you are comparing apples to apples ... A 14W fluorescent bulb puts out the same light as a 40W incandescent ... I imagine LED lights are even more efficient.  2005/12/16-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41046 Activity:kinda low 12/16 Pacific islanders move to escape global warming http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205/sc_nm/environment_climate_island_dc \_ GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING! TREES CAUSE POLLUTION! LALALALAL LALALALALAL!!!!!!11!!!1one \_ Hi. Take a geography class and learn how coral reefs and beaches have been slowly disappearing for a few thousand years. LALALA indeed. A little education will help you better understand the world around you. \_ Is this poster trying to be funny, too, or did he completely miss the point of the previous post? \_ cf. "LALALALA" \_ I suggest you take a class on the geography of Vanuatu. It is not a reef. -John \_ LALALALALALALAL! \_ What is this, slashdot? Why are we having a slew of posts of week-old news? \_ Probably someone just randomly surfing crap. Anyway, who cares, by 2100 most of us will most likely be dead. \_ "There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but I'll never see it." --George W. Bush  2005/12/13-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41000 Activity:kinda low 12/13 Winter ain't over until it's over: http://tinyurl.com/d5qo9 \_ "Despite urgings from some Republican senators, the U.S. oil industry declined to offer any of its$30 billion in third-quarter profits for what it views as a government responsibility. The only significant outside aid has come from Citgo Petroleum, controlled by the Venezuelan government and its president, fierce Bush administration adversary Hugo Chavez, who has promised $10 million in discounts to low-income northeastern heating oil customers." \_ Having been a low-income northeasterner for quite some time now, living in the shitty old tenements they call "housing" out here, I would say that at least half of the energy used on heat here is just pissed straight out the single pain windows, poorly \_ pane insulated walls and un-caulked joints. The only way to really help people in the long run out here is to somehow provide a financial incentive to the slumlords to apply a little basic thermodynamics to the housing rather than just letting the tenant pay 300 bucks a month to heat a small two bedroom apartment. \_ Hence "ownership society!" Silly liberals. \_ I do agree with the oil companies ... It's not their fault that America has a "faith-based" approach to energy, just praying that the invisible hand of the market will always provide citizens with cheap energy when we've known for over 30 years that growth and depletion would start causing major problems right around the year 2000 or so. \_ I agree with them also. Our problem is not that our government is controlled by oil men. Our problem is that our government is controlled by stupid, ignorant, and incompetent oil men. \_ Hence Bush's crusade to secure oil resources! see, it all makes sense.  2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40974 Activity:nil 12/12 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html "Israel's armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon ... to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed. ... Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, 'it has been understood that the lesson is, don't have one site, have 50 sites', a White House source said. ... 'If we opt for the military strike,' said a source, 'it must be not less than 100% successful. It will resemble the destruction of the Egyptian air force in three hours in June 1967.'" \_ An Israeli air force attack is the one thing that won't happen. \_ "We'll nuke you if we have to!" \_ They should annex some land while they're at it. That worked out real well for them last time. \_ You do realize why they did that and why it has, in fact, worked out well? Oh wait. This is motd. Nevermind. \_ Gaza worked out well??? \_ Do you realize *why* Israel annexed Gaza?  2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40868 Activity:nil 12/5 Eminent domain abuse in CA: http://csua.org/u/e6p "A jury next year will decide how much the county must pay for the land, unless the owners agree on a sale price. "Gidaro's group bought the property last year for$60 million from National Gas and Energy Transmission, a successor to PG&E Properties. The county values the land at $50 million. The Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, which operates the Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County, has said it would finance the purchase of the ranch." \_ How is it abuse? Or are you one of the "use == abuse" people? \_ You're right, we should pave over prime ag land with Blockbuster and Olive Garden. Suburban sprawl is awesome! \_ Pretty impressive those Gidaro guys manage to buy land in CA that goes down in value. \_ Yeah weird how ED works like that....  2005/12/5-6 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40850 Activity:high 12/5 http://csua.org/u/e66 (Washington Post, Aug 2 2005) "A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon ... in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece (Dec 4 2005) "Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be 'a few months' away from a nuclear weapon." http://csua.org/u/e67 (jpost.com, Dec 5 2005) "IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb." So, uh ... what exactly changed between August 2nd, 2005 and now? \_ Nothing has changed - the IAEA has always been completely inept. \_ Nothing has changed - the IAEA has always been completely inept as have most of our politicized intelligence agencies (e.g. State and the CIA, glaringly exposed in the Plame case). It should not be any surpise then that we missed WTCI and II, Pakistan, India, Libya, Cole, Sudan, WMD in GWI, etc... The point is not whether Iran is months away from a bomb, they probably have that now. Rather, the key question is whether they have a nuclear tipped Shahab-3. probably have that now. Rather, the key question is whether they have a nuclear tipped Shahab-3. Those nuclear bunker busters and theater missile defense sure sound like a good idea now eh? Thank you Jimmy Carter \_ bunkerbuster bombs dont work, study your physics. \_ Yeah, I'm sure those dead people agree. \_ tell that to all those women and children hiding in the baby milk factory. \_ I'm glad you brought that up. Those signs looked believable to me. \_ What? You don't believe a sign written in English in the middle of Iraq that says, "BABY MILK FACTORY! DO NOT BOMB HERE YOU EVIL AMERICAN PIG DOGS!"? \_ I would agree that IAEA is completely inept. I mean, they should of pressure USA and Russia to disarm their nuclear weapons as part of the deal too. Instead, it is single-mindly focusing on those who want to join the nuclear club. \_ Uhm... what? \_ Dunno but guessing: new intelligence info? The world isn't static. \_ Maybe the recent story about Iran buying nuclear tech from North Korea for oil \_ This post is so partisan I don't know what to say. \_ Yeah, he forgot the part about the CIA missing the fall of the USSR, since spying on the Soviets and knowing what was going on was the reason for the CIA to exist the last 50+ years. \_ you didn't know that USA and Russia suppose to disarm as part of NPT, don't you? \_ you mean article 6? re-read it. \_ honestly, I don't see any danger of Iran having nuclear weapon. If anything, India/Pakistein poses more danger simply because one \- is that the Jewish part of Pakistan? of them have the incentive to use it in a conflict.  2005/12/2-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40813 Activity:nil 12/2 I remember somebody posted a link to a site that compares the cost of electricity generation of different types of plants. Like it cost$x to produce 1 megawatt using coal, $y using nuclear,$z using wind etc. I can't find it in the archives anymore. Can somebody repost that link. Thanks. \_ I can tell that I've been doing too much perl hacking lately given that I saw those as variable names instead of dollar amounts. \_ http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=305
 2005/11/30-12/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40781 Activity:kinda low 11/30 "Researchers Convert Chicken Fat to Fuel" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_sc/chicken_fat_fuel If the process can be adapted to converting human fat to fuel, it will solve the energy problem in the US completely! We may even export energy back to the Middle East. \_ We can't wait for the 30 miles per big-mac models to come out \_ convert human fat to fuel: ride bike \_ convert repetitive myopic refrain: shoot self \_ How dare you tell me to do hard work. I want something for no work! \_ I find biking to be much easier than driving in just about every way, for distances under three miles in a city. I would pay to ride around on a bike, and I would have to get paid to drive. \_ That's because you don't have politically-correct fat-filled belly and ass like mine. \_ What they really want is for some people to die, so other people can get around easily/effortlessly by pushing a gas pedal on their car. \_ oh, kind of like the war for oil in iraq? \_ oh, kind of like the war in iraq? \_ Reminds me of the joke from fight club about selling rich women their asses back to them.
 2005/11/29-12/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40765 Activity:low 11/29 Hey MOTD, I have an idle curiosity question, but no time to research it on my own: Does anybody know if the typical recycling program in the us is run at a loss or as a profitable venture? I'd guess that most are subsidized at the municipal level, but I'm rather clueless about the whole thing. Any info or links that a moron like myself could digest quickly would be great. TIA. -mice \_ http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=6&id=179 Myth 7, table 2 \_ Hmm, seems like the writer has a definite agenda to push, but there's alot of good information here. I'll have to read and digest as time allows. Thanks for the link! -mice \_ Saying the writer has an agenda is an understatement. The source here is a far-right anti-environmental group. \_ Saying someone has an agenda is easy and mostly worthless. Showing better and different data is useful. \_http://www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/recyc/recyinx.asp http://www.nrc-recycle.org/resources/rei/studyresults.htm etc. \_ Ooh! More sources! Muchas gracias! -mice \_ The biggest reason for subsidizing recycling is that it beats the increased cost of filling new landfills farther and farther away from the source. \_ Myth 1 \_ Myth 1 & 4 \_ Myth 1 is not a myth: (from the nrdc link) http://www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/recyc/chap2.asp Myth 4 is also addressed, although it really doesn't need to be. Reading the screed is enough to debunk the author's point. He has holes in his arguments against recycling a mile wide. The http://nrdc.org source is much better written and much more persuasive. And I wasn't a fan of recycling prior to this. I guess I should change my tune. -nivra \_ Generally, municipal recycling programs combine some high-value items (cans and bottles) with low-value items (mixed paper and plastics). The programs could pay for themselves, except that the high-value items are scammed by the shopping cart brigade. -tom \_ Reference? \_ My employer's waste management company is BFI. During a meeting with them back in March, "BFI pointed out that a successful recycling program not only benefits the environment, but improves 's bottom line by significantly reducing trash removal our company's bottom line by significantly reducing trash removal costs."
 2005/11/28-30 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40751 Activity:moderate 11/28 Which one is more efficient? 1. Use electricity to generate hydrogen and burn it in a fuel-cell car. \_ this is a very very inefficient process. Only country such as Iceland where geothermal energy is plentiful can they afford to do this. Here is a lesson for energy: The key for many energy-related industries (including chemcial industry) is how to generate *HYDROGEN* cheaply. And electrolysis water is one of the most *EXPENSIVE* way of doing so. The cheapest way to generate hydrogen is from natrual gas and petroleum. This is one of the main reason why I don't really believe in hydrogen fuel-cell cars, as I suspect the amount of energy required to generate hydrogen is typically being ignored. kngharv \_ I just heard on the radio today that Honda has some 1M prototype cars that run on hydrogen generated from water electrolysis using solar power. So I was wondering why not simply use the solar electricity to charge the batteries of electric cars. Hence the efficiency question of #1 vs. #2. --- OP \_ in that context, then, it's a toss up, and we really don't know which one is more efficient. Charging batteries are horribly inefficient and this is why we don't see any electric car on the street at first place. The new trend of thought is use solar/wind to generate hydrogen (hence, much easier to store) and let various devices run on hydrogen. It's a relatively new concept and it has a lot of kinks to work out. Personally, I am very excited about this trend. kngharv \_ There is a short blurb in Dec 2005 Scientific American about some new solar cells being worked on that directly generate hydrogen... still not as cheap as hydrogen from natural gas though. Perhaps in time... \_ this is the reason why I am so pissed at Bush and his policy. The administration is doing everything to lower the price of petro-based product (by invading another country, relax the environment standard, etc) instead of investing money on those solar/wind + hydrogen based technology. \_ Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It is a storage and transport mechanism. The reason we don't use solar and wind for main power is they aren't consistent enough, solar cells are very toxic to produce and take up large amounts of land, wind kills birds, and neither can produce enough power to replace enough fossil fuels to bother. They each have some limited uses but aren't exactly new tech. Are you also pissed at Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc? What serious steps did any of them take in that direction? None. Because neither is economic and *never* can be for large scale energy production. If we ran out of oil tomorrow, we'd go nuclear and everything would be wired electric, batteries, or both. The batteries might be hydrogen, they might not. \_ Silicon cells suck, yes. But the problem with solar is completely a technology problem, not a problem of not enough energy. The total area of the U.S. that is paved by either roads or parkinglots recieves enough power from the sun to satisfy our energy needs. Making a system that is as cheap as paint and as robust and safe as asfault that produces electricity efficiently and converts it into some convenient storage medium is a very very large challenge, but it violates no laws of physics, and that's what we should be srtiving for. It might take decades, but I believe that if the U.S. focused its physical sciences research in this direction it would happen. I also think this will happen by profit-driven corporate researchers without the government if the government does nothing, but it might take longer. It is silly to dismiss solar just because the present technology is useless. If we had to use 1800's technology, oil wouldn't work for running our civilization either. \_ So you want to have a huge federal program to create solar tech sometime in the next few decades that may or may not work? To the exclusion of other technology? Money doesn't grow on trees. \_ If we already know something definitely will work before we look into it, it wouldn't be called "research", would it? -- !PP \_ Exactly. So you want to blow a few decades of effort on something that may not come to anything, yet up above you claim there is no reason it can't work. So which is it? \_ when I say solar/wind + hydrogen, I meant hydrogen as a transporting/storing mechanism. and I repeat, I am pissed at Bush because they choose to align themselves with the old industry, at the expense of environment (clear sky initiative, for example). Frankly, last thing we want is to make petro-based energy cheaper if we want to provide more incentive for new, renewable energy, especially when war, drill of national refuge, and allowing barf mercury to the air is involved. \_ We have the same mercury standard we've always had. Are you aware the last minute (literally) Clinton standard would have required levels lower than mercury occurs naturally in many places? That was political BS and too many people ate it up. "Bush wants to poison us with mercury! ack!" As far as the rest, Bush hasn't done anything any differently than any other President going back forever. Name the POTUS who has pushed for artificially higher gas prices in an effort to provide industry incentive to pursue alternative energy research. If you want to hate Bush, go ahead, there are a lot of reasons for it. What you've stated isn't unique to Bush in any way. No sane person would vote for someone who wanted higher oil prices. That's the politics of the extreme/green left. You can't name anyone in Congress of either party ever in favor of that. \_ Umm, wind is already competitive with other power sources, and you really think wind turbines kill more birds per year than fossil fuel production & consumption? \_ I'm just repeating the anti-wind rhetoric on birds. Wind is *not* reliable as a nationwide source of power. Not enough places have room or enough consistent wind for it. At best it will always remain a secondary source. \_ Being a secondary source isn't bad. If wind provides, say, 30% of the energy, that's a pretty big dent on the whole problem already. \_ 30% That would be a miracle. What is the current % in places that support wind power? I don't have the numbers but I'd bet it's in the trivial below 2% range. \_ Or glass-wall highrise buildings, for that matter. 2. Use electricity to charge the battery of an electric car and run it. \_ you need to be careful about that statement, as you need to taken account where is the electricity come from at first place kngharv \_ More completely: 1. Use some renewable or non-renewable resource to generate electricity, and taking into account transmission costs to the hydrogen plant, generate hydrogen. Then, taking into account hydrogen transportation costs, use it to power a fuel-cell car. (Note, you don't "burn" fuel, in a fuel cell, per se) 2. Yadda generate, yadda transmission costs all the way to charging location (home? central?) \3. Install an electric grid such cars get their power directly as long as they are on the road. Kind of like bumper cars, or electric powered buses (like you see in SF) or electric trains. Oh, were we talking energy efficient or cost efficient? (this idea has huge infrastructure costs) \_ Energy efficiency. -- OP \_ Though it could take more energy to construct a really elaborate super-efficient system than you'd ever save over the useful life of the system. \_ 4. Ride Bike! \_ 5. walk.  2005/11/22-25 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40705 Activity:nil 11/22 Do you guys actually like those energy efficient flourescent light bulbs that fit into the incandescent light bulb sockets? I've been getting a lot of headache from them and after switching back to regular bulbs my headaches were gone. I really miss the warm tone that the traditional bulbs give, and wish that more people use traditional bulbs. \_ high wattage fluorescents approach white light. use a 32W or 40W compact fluorscent bulb. \_ Different brands have different tones, too. Also, what you're used to as "normal" or "warm" is very much not white light and thus true white CFLs look bluish. I've found that Lights of America brand bulbs tend to have a longer warmup period but a generally "warmer" tone. --dbushong \_ I really don't miss traditional bulbs heating up my room in summer while providing little light. A 13W CFL after warming up really does provide the same amount of light as a 60W traditional bulb. I verified it using a lightmeter. \_ Fluorescent light bulbs come in a variety of different color temperatures and spectrums. You may want to take a closer look at the emissions of your bulb and find one more to your liking (find a site that discusses the bulbs used with planted aquariums and you'll find more information on this topic than you ever wanted to know). I have some power compact fluorescent torchieres that were designed as halogen torchiere replacements that use bulbs I like.  2005/11/22-24 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40703 Activity:kinda low 11/22 http://tinyurl.com/dj5dj (yahoo news) Staring Jan. 1, the buyer of a new home equipped with a solar photovoltaic system may claim a tax credit valued at 30% of the system's cost, to a maximum of2,000." So if I install $6666 worth of solar stuff, I can get back$2000. Can I install another $6666 worth of solar stuff the next year and get another$2000 back? \_ What part of "new home" do you not understand? \_ "the average U.S. household pays about $1,500 a year for electricity." How do they come up with this number? I only pay about$350/yr for a family of four, even with a thermo pot that's powered on 24/7. \_ Most of the country is very hot all summer long. -tom \- do you live in ... maine? \_ No. And? \_ YBHBCA: SMALL \_ Your brain has been classified as: small. \_ Are you talking about heating cost? \_ Usually it is cooling costs that drive high household energy bills. \_ More people (including me) will be willing to install solar panels if they can change the regulations to allow a net output of electricity from your home into the grid, so as to sell electricity to the power provider. \_ They do allow net output of electricity from your home into the grid; we sell to PG&E at daytime rates, and buy back at nighttime rates. They won't ever give you cash money, but they'll credit you for the power you generated. -tom \_ What I mean is that if overall you generate more than what you use, you won't eventually get any money back. So it's not worthwhile for people who have big roofs but use little electricity to install solar panels. \_ It's not worthwhile to install more than you need; it's still worthwhile to install as much as you need. -tom \_ It can't be too lucrative otherwise everyone starts doing it and the infrastructure would have to be redesigned (which would be a good thing)
 2005/11/17-20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Transportation/Motorcycle] UID:40624 Activity:nil 11/17 http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz Your cheapo motorcycle helmet could provide better protection than your $600 Arai helmet. \_ Thanks, this article is great.  2005/11/16-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40615 Activity:nil 11/15 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy Inflation moderates as gas prices dip. Yay! Now we can buy our hummers and still feel good about inexpensive gas. \_ If you only drive it occasionally, sure.  2005/11/14-15 [Recreation/Food, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40586 Activity:low 76%like:40581 11/14 How much of your favorite caffinated beverage would it take to kill you? http://www.energyfiend.com/death-by-caffeine \_ Interesting. I guess coffee has more caffeine than espresso drinks. See Starbucks Grande Coffee vs. Grande Mocha's, Per unit volume, obviously espresso wins, but per drink, coffee wins. \- "it's the moles that get you" \_ OMFG, Redline Caffeine drink: http://csua.org/u/e0j (Same site) \_ http://caffeineweb.com/NASAStudy.htm  2005/11/14-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40579 Activity:nil 11/14 The hunt for the worst sound in the world. http://www.sound101.org  2005/11/14-15 [Health/Men, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40574 Activity:nil 11/14 Terrorists arrested in Austrailia were planning attack on a nuclear reactor: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051114/ts_nm/security_australia_plot_dc And some of their supporters beat up a camera crew outside the c courthouse: http://csua.org/u/e0c \_ I suggest we torture them immediately. Better to break their wills than collect useful intelligence. \_ I suggest we torture the OP for the abuse of an apostrophe. [OP has fixed "we're" now, so my torture recommendation is rescinded] \_ i think the remaining misspelling deserves some non-inhumane treatment  2005/11/8-9 [Science/Biology, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40498 Activity:moderate 11/8 Kansas school board approves change to definition of science to permit teaching of intelligent design alongside theory of evolution Old text: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us ..." New text: "Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us ..." \_ I don't see how that really changes anything. ID is no more logical than it is natural. -tom \_ 2006 State of Kansas Science Textbook: Chapter 1: The Flat Earth Chapter 2: The Earth-revolving Sun Chapter 3: Seven Days of Creation Chapter 4: Logical vs Natural: 3 Steps to Bring you Closer to God \_ Chapter 5: Atheist Scentists Go to Hell \_ Chapter 5: Aetheist Scentists Go to Hell \_ Chapter 6: Faith-Based Science and Engineering: Power of Prayer \_ 2006 State of Kansas Health Textbook: Chapter 1: Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Head About It \- so are parents goign to be allowed to have their kids opt out of the fruitcake stuff? \_ Great phrase by Kansas ID board member: "Darwin Fundamentalist" \_ FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER WILL GET THE INFIDELS! -John \_ Flying Spaghetti Monster can't keep flying forever! Thanks to Intelligent Falling.  2005/11/7-8 [Science, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40469 Activity:nil 11/5 LED Lightbulbs: http://www.inhabitat.com/entry_714.php \_ Beautiful! Can't wait for these to hit the market! \_ Apparently, they are (not the fancy ones) http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/led  2005/11/1-4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Electric] UID:40392 Activity:low 11/1 PC problem: is it possible for a PC to crash during graphics- intensive operations (i.e. games) if it's not getting enough power? I have a new box I put together, and it locks up during some really big graphics "moments"--I can't think of any other reason for it (tried everything else I came up with.) Is this plausible? -John \_ Yes it is. HEIL JOHN! \_ I think the answer is "yes" ... if your power supply is too wimpy and everything is trying to suck down maximum juice it can crash. \_ Absolutely. My brother put together a machine with an ungodly graphics card, and his computer crashed like clockwork. Turns out he needed a bigger power supply. Installed it, and crash-free ever since. \_ Thanks, I would have thought a 450W Arctic PSU would be enough (Asus EN6800, 2GB, Athlon 64 3500+, 1 HD and a bunch of USB devices.) I'll get a 500+ one. Does a gfx card need more power when displaying something like, say, a big series of explosions in an FPS game than when showing regular gameplay? -John \_ wow, 450W sounds plenty. but then again, vid cards (esp. nvidia) are power whores. i have a 3200+ w/ 6600GT and a 400W PSU, and i don't seem to have any power issues. oh, and newer MBs have multiple power connectors now (part of the ATX2.0 standard). do you have all of them plugged in? \_ along these lines I think a lot of graphics cards are now having thier own direct power connections that you can plug in for increased stability. -mrauser \_ This one does. All power connects plugged in. My colleague who postulated this as a possibility says he needed a 2550W supply (!) -John \_ Uh no, he doesn't. Unfortunately the likely answer in your case is all XYZ Watt PSs don't supply that much power in reality. Get a higher quality PS. Read some reviews. And yes, high intensity graphics that use more onchip features and require more on board vram, etc, are going to eat more power. Also, it is possible that you have a heat problem as well. You've got a micro nuclear reactor inside your case being cooled by some dinky fans. Heat can cause all sorts of weirdness. \_ I've got 4 120mm arctic case fans--the thing's running at 59C under the CPU, and less on the GPU. I may try a 450w arctic PSU, we'll see. -John I may try a 1450w arctic PSU, we'll see. -John \_ I had a couple of games that moved too much data across the AGP or Northbridge and crashed the system regularly due to shitty MB/Chipset design. Underclocking the frontside bus fixed the problem but is obviously sub-optimal. \_ I've had a problem in the past where in certain graphics intensive games my computer would lock up. I called the card manufacturer and they told me to uninstall graphics driver and reinstall. Apparently you shouldn't just install them on top of each other. It worked for me, you may want to see if that'll help you.  2005/10/25-26 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science] UID:40263 Activity:nil 10/25 Civ 4 is out tomorrow! http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620513/img_3162231.html http://pc.ign.com/articles/660/660495p1.html "Leonard Nimoy for his amazing voiceover work reading a short quotation as each new technology is discovered" \_ http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620513/img_3162250.html  2005/10/22-24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/RealEstate] UID:40224 Activity:nil 10/21 http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/disillus.html Housing disillusion. You can skip the last paragraph on Jesus Christ \_ Uh, this article was written in 1991, and turned out to be completely wrong. -tom \_ What is the point of posting this article, unless it is to show that gloom and doomers are always with us?  2005/10/20-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40204 Activity:low 10/20 Canada among the 'worst polluters': http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/10/18/canada.pollution.ap/index.html \_ Just the tarsands alone produces as much greenhouse gas as 1/3 the entire California passenger car fleet. It's kind of ironic that \_ Just the tarsands alone produces as much greenhouse gas as 1/3 of the entire California passenger car fleet. It's kind of ironic that they are using one of the cleanest fuels (natural gas) to produce much more environmentally dirty petroleum and producing tons of emissions in the process. much more environmentally dirty petroleum and lots of emissions more environmentally dirty petroleum and lots of emissions in the process.  2005/10/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/Theory] UID:40153 Activity:nil 10/18 http://www.livejournal.com/users/dpodbori/1369.html ON DANGERS OF BEING AN INSECT WITH WINGS AND A MYSTERIOUS INSTANCE OF MASS MAILING \_ Why was this posted? Is it supposed to be funny? \_ No it's not funny.  2005/10/10-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40036 Activity:high 10/10 Last week's Economist had an article on using man-made, controlled tornados for power. I just thought it was interesting after our discussion on using hurricanes for power. Unfortunatly, the economist link doesn't seem to work, but I got this on google: www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF1/105.html \_ http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4455446 \_ How long will it take Michael Crichton to write a book saying how this will destroy the world? \_ Probably right after the bird flu novel. Has he written the global warming novel yet? \_ You mean you missed it? He wrote a whole book about how global warming was an environmentalist plot to take over the world or something. And I don't think he was kidding. \_ Crichton wrote a book on how global warming was overhyped, and that the real danger to the world was crazed environmentalists. I think he was called to testify in front of a congressional committee about global warming recently? He's got a medical degree but I still think it was lame. - danh \_ I've never read a Crichton book. Sounds like I should start though. \_ The good and bad thing about Crichton books is that they read *exactly* like movies. I find that after I've read a Chrichton book, I literally can't remember whether I saw the movie or read the book. Great for a plane, and worthless for anything else. \- [thread branch] In re: the motd thread about the anthropic principle some time ago, there is an article in the latest e'ist about a new proposal in m-theory to explain the "3 dimension bias": http://csua.org/u/don it is co-authored by lisa randall who is fmr lbl and whose sister some of you may know from ucb cs.  2005/9/29-10/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39926 Activity:nil 9/29 "Alaska landscape transformed by warmer climate" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050928/sc_nm/environment_alaska_dc "In the cooler interior regions, buildings are slumping and roads are buckling as permafrost -- frozen soil -- thaws and turns into softer, spongy soil. The Inupiat village of Shishmaref on a narrow Chukchi Sea barrier island is preparing to move as the town sinks into the ground." \_ "Noun used as adjective." \_ run on? \_ FRAGMENT!!! \_ Will be used more later. \_ it might lower the cost of drilling in wild life refuge :p \_ Actually, the melting permafrost means that it's getting harder to build roads in the arctic, which increases costs. There may be other plus sides of climate change for the oil industry, but this is a big minus for them.  2005/9/28 [Transportation/Airplane, Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39916 Activity:nil 9/28 oh my, Pres. Bush while flying over oil Rigs.. "It's like Atlantis down there..."  2005/9/24-28 [Science/GlobalWarming, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:39855 Activity:high 9/24 Is there a link btwn global warming and hurricanes? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4276242.stm \_ Thank you. You're right there is not enough data to suggest global warming->hurricanes. I will continue driving my SUVs because I don't believe in stuff like pollution->cancer. I hate it when you liberals accuse me of causing cancer and birth defects. There's plenty of air and oil to go around. MY SUV, MY property. Keep your liberal laws off of my SUV. -trl \_ Get off the SUV drivers backs ; anyone driving a gas/diesel powered vehicle is guilty, weighted in their actual fuel consumption. \_ Yes, I agree. Everyone who burns fossil fuel is guilty to the extent that they consume that. What peeves me is that SUV drivers don't pay for their fair share of things. They cause more damage to our roadways from their extra weight, they cause more environmental damage, and they are a greater risk on the road. But SUV drivers get away without paying more in taxes and, in some cases, get tax breaks. So no, I won't get off SUV drivers backs until they pay their fair share. \_ Hehe, and it was you liberals (or more accurately you environmentalists) who have helped set back atomic energy for decades, resulting in our continued dependency on inefficient and ultimately hazardous fossil fuels. Stuff like renewable energy isn't a real solution to the problem. Neither is "ride bike" bullshit. If people want a real solution we should start looking into viable long-term strategies and not be knee-jerk about it. Of course, this will never happen. \_ You are a useless sack of shit. Maybe we can solve the energy crisis by running turbines off of the hot air that comes out of the mouths of jackoff know it all sysadmins like you. \_ Hehe, and it was you republicans (or more accurately you SUV drivers) who have needlessly wasted our fuel supply for decades, resulting in our continued dependency on inefficient and ultimately hazardous fossil fuels. Stuff like "Why do you hate America?" isn't a real solution to the problem. Neither is "Why do you support terrorist?" Stuff like invading another country isn't a real solution to the problem. Neither is "Why do you hate America?" bullshit. If people want a real solution we should start looking into viable long-term strategies and not be knee-jerk about it. Of course, this will never happen. \_ Do you understand that the guy you're responding to was the fuckhead who thinks people who don't like the way the 2004 election turned out should all move to Canada? \_ You are a useless sack of shit. \_ Pot. Kettle. Black. \_ Yeah, "real solutions" like invading other countries. \_$6/gallon gasoline tax would take care of the problem pretty quickly. We should make the SUV drivers shoulder the true cost (military, etc) of their gasoline. \_ Troll? I'll respond anyway but I'll keep it simple: $6/gallon gas tax: dead economy. Low gas prices pay for themselves by having low prices for everything else. Do you work? You won't have a job. Are you in school? Forget loans and grants. Forget social programs including education. We should continue to ignore crack pots with an axe to grind. \_ How'd UK and Japan survive? \_ They're falling apart. You want to swap economies with either one? \_ Do you equate success and value economic numbers and nothing else? \_ Which economy would you swap with and what positive thing do you think you'd be getting along with your screwed up foreign economy? If you're going to troll, you need to bring your own troll toys to play with. \_ FWIW, Japan's economy is finally having a revival. It's bad bank debts have been mostly dealt with already. Buy some Japanese stocks. EWJ perhaps? \_ Granted, they're no longer in a deep recession but would you trade economies with them? What country would you swap economies with at this time? \_ Denmark. !op !pp \_ I am not sure what you mean by "swap economies". I wouldn't mind swapping a S&P500 index fund for a TOPIX fund S&P500 index fund with a TOPIX fund though, at least for the next year or two. \_ Australia. \_ I would swap economies with any Northern European nation. I want six weeks of vacation and six months of paid family leave. I would pay$6/gallon gasoline for things like that. I bet over the next 20 years, as Peak Oil hits, they will do much better in every way economically. \_ Must be why so many Swedish white collar professionals are moving to the UK for its low (!) taxes. -John \ Even the Japanese take more \_ UK economy is pretty strong is it not? vacation time than we do and crime is practically non-existant compared to the USAnot to mention a great public transit system. The cute girls is a nice perk too ;-) Heck; even moving to canada would be an improvement \_ Why do you care? We just heard that global warming is irreversible now. I'm burning tires for electricity.
 2005/9/24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39850 Activity:nil 57%like:39860 9/24 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050924/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran IAEA votes to refer Iran to UN Security Council. In order to obtain abstentions from China and Russia, language specifying "sanctions" and including a specific date were dropped. \_ how about N.Korea?
 2005/9/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39823 Activity:nil 9/22 "Report says global warming could spark conflict" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050922/sc_nm/environment_warming_dc \_ We're already doing well without global warming's help. \_ Report says global warming affects Jennifer Lopez's sex life. Report says global warming could lead to discovery of Sasquatch. Report says global warming killed JFK.
 2005/9/22-23 [Science/Disaster, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39817 Activity:high 9/22 Ok, so we've established that the nukular option against the hurricane is lame. How about effective ways to HARNESS the awsome energy from the hurricane? What are some things that could be effective? Portable windmills? Wave energy collection? \_ I'd post my idea for a giant blimp array, but you guys will just make fun of me. \_ Think of it like harvasting lightning for power. The key word is substainability. \_ Windmills might work if they are rigid enough, since they can work with other winds when there is no hurricane. Another approach I can wildly imagine is to build a large array of smaller and somewhat flexible windmills so that they don't break in a hurricane. \- given that hurricanes generate more energy than the all of humanity needs at that moment, how would you store it ... or would you just run high energy physics experiments durning hurricanes? hurricanes? --psb \_ Pump water from lower ground to higher ground. It's not like windmills can tap anywhere close to 100% of the hurricanes' energy output anyway. \- remind me why were are using hurricane power instead of say wave power? \_ I'll remind you that we aren't actually using either. \- remind me why were are using hurricane power instead of say wave power? --psb \_ No one has developed a working large scale model for chaging wave power to something more useful. The large models that have been tested have been very disappointing. \_ Somehow, the image of Igor waiting for a hurricane to make landfall before raising the platform just lacks poetry. -gm \_ A gigantic propeller! The size of the whole huricane! That floats along with it! Yeah! \_ Just use solar power. The amount of energy from sunshine on a city in a day is about equal to an atomic bomb. \_ Igor, fetch me an atomic bomb. Or we could just use... HAMSTER POWER. -John \_ Lighting rods hooked into your zed-pm. \_ Just don't ground them into the ocean by accident.
 2005/9/19-21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:39751 Activity:nil 77%like:39736 9/17 Interesting article re the Dolly Llama's take the relationship btwn \_ Dalai Lama, maybe? \_ Someone keeps changing it. Science and Religion: http://www.nysun.com/article/19969?access=278096
 2005/9/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:39736 Activity:nil 77%like:39751 9/17 Interesting article re the Dalia Lama's take the relationship btwn Science and Religion: http://www.nysun.com/article/19969?access=278096
 2005/9/15-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39700 Activity:moderate 9/15 The End Of The Binge http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_09_12/cover.html Of course, Kunstler also said that y2k would bring on the Apocalypse... \_ Vegas being deserted in 20 years is my favorite part. \_ Assuming air conditioning is no longer affordable by the masses, who would want to live in Las Vegas? \_ There's a lot of money behind Vegas. I'm pretty sure given the large area of desert around it some NIMBYism could be assuaged to put in a nice modern reactor. Electricity prices aren't tied to fossil fuels everywhere. Hell, doesn't Vegas get its power from hydro now? \_ What's funn yabout it is that he assumes food can not be grown around Las Vegas. Now, certainly you couldn't grow enough to support the current population, but it was originally setted my mormons from Salt Lake. (That other desert they cultivated) and they didn't have any fossil fuels. This guy's dark future is not particularly consistent. \_ Yep. That's what makes it so humorous. The thing that would kill Vegas would be the ongoing drought in the Eastern Rockies.
 2005/9/14-17 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/Theory] UID:39673 Activity:nil 9/14 Cognitive science searches for a common morality http://bostonreview.net/BR30.5/saxe.html
 2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39667 Activity:nil 9/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050913/od_nm/life_manure_dc Using shit as a source of renewable energy \_ Equipment that burns gas made from manure? Why not just burn the manure directly? It has been done in the wild for centuries. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050914/cm_ucru/charitiesareforsuckers
 2005/9/8-10 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39580 Activity:nil 9/8 Power Generating Backpacks for you hippy pot smoking tree huggers: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/wip_energy_gene.php http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/006948.php
 2005/9/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39521 Activity:nil 9/6 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050906/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices Gas prices start to fall again. Yay, it's time to buy SUVs again!!! \_ Too bad. I was enjoying the nice flow on the freeway for the past few days. It was so... wonderful, like sex. Now it must end.
 2005/9/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39437 Activity:nil 9/1 Pretty interesting interview of a hedge fund manager called Peter Thiel on http://cbsmarketwatch.com. He thinks the housing bubble will end not when people stop buying but when the lenders stop lending. And lenders will stop lending when the yield curve inverts, which is when short term interest rate goes above long term interest rate. He also thinks oil will stay around this level but oil equity still has a little room to grow since they are still based on the assumption that long term oil price will be around $40 per barrel. He also likes Canadian energy companies that own tar sands fields which become viable now (eg. nexen (nxy)). He thinks US will go into a Japan-like long term deflation. By end of year, his current guess would be to short US equities and short US dollars.  2005/9/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39420 Activity:high 9/1 Alternative/Mainstream energy predictions 50 years from now: \_ Read The Party's Over, Richard Heinberg, who debunks most replacements for oil. His second book, Powerdown, recommends a path for reducing population and preserving the best of this peak in human evolution \_ The path to reducing population is WW3. Its coming soon, b/c w/o it Zephram Cochrane can't take over a missle silo in Montana and invent warp drive. Once we have warp drive everything begins to change... \_ Nuclear \_ no way! \_ Fusion \_ no way! \_ Way! \_ Coal \_ unfortunately! \_ Natural Gas \_ no way! \_ alternative energy \_ wind has the most potential right now... \_ I met someone at a party whose job was designing wind farms in the North Atlantic. I thought that was just the coolest job ever. -John \_ zero point? \_ Zed PM, baby. \_ Hi there SG1/Atlantis fan! There are 2 of us here now! \_ This is getting out of hand! \_ How do you like the dude you replaced O'Neill? - yaSG1/AtlantisFan \_ biofuel \_ no way! \_ Cannibalism \_ Zombie Holocaust! \_ Prayer! \_ SEX! \_ yermom! \_ Forever mice: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1754008,00.html \_ I'm...not liking this whole unnecessary 'amputation of my limbs' thing. -mice \_ I'm...not liking this whole 'amputation of my limbs' thing. -mice /1 I'm listening to CNN and I can't believe how HAPPY the news reporters sound at describing the terrible situation in New Orleans. Has anyone else noticed this? Is anyone else disturbed by this? \_ anything that makes Bush looks bad is worth it. \_ Bush is looking bad b/c of the hurricane? I didn't pick up on that. \_ The Federal Government in general looks slow and incompetant. Bush II is the face of the government. And he himself is reacting slowly on the disaster relief front. \_ Well he did have a b-day party for McCain and guitar practice to attend. \_ And he did declare LA a disaster area before the party. \_ Someone deleted my comment, but I think blonde folksy robotic news anchors are par for the course nowadays. Just look at Fox News - they use an equivalent tone to report news on Bennifer as they do for Iraq. \_ You'd be like that too with a face full of botox and body swimming in uppers and downers. \_ I'm...not liking this whole 'amputation of my limbs' thing. -mice \_ HAMMSSSTTEERRR POWEEERRRRR! \_ Hamster power! http://www.aaaugh.com/jokes/hamster_power.html -John  2005/9/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39412 Activity:nil 9/1 Four dollars a gallon and rising : http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0831/4921602_240X180.jpg (picture from a service station in South Carolina) \_ We're gonna beat out Canada pretty soon. They're at Can$1.04/liter which is ~ US$3.30/gallon \_ How long do you think this will keep going? 2 weeks? 2 months? I think this is the catalyst that'll break our economy. \_ That'll be sad -- the economy of the strongest country in the world being brought down by one hurricane. But I agree that Katrina is probably starting the breakdown. \_ So you two think this is the beginning of a world wide and lasting depression? Based on what? \_ Did I say world wide or lasting?  2005/9/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39399 Activity:low 8/31 Where is the strategic oil reserve located? Government oil sites? Or hidden underground? And how much are we tapping now and assuming Louisiana oil is gone for several years, how long would it last? \- under Ray's Original Pizza in Manhattan. It will last until 12:53pm, Dec 12, 2005. \_ Bunch of salt caves (4 in total, I think.) -John \_ Underground tanks in TX and LA. They need to be relatively close to the refineries. \_ um, no. CO, UT, and WY \_ um, yes. http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-sites.html \_ Are you a terrorist? \_ http://www.eveningsun.com/Stories/0,1413,140~26155~3036365,00.html Colorado, Utah and Wyoming \_ Oil shale. Great. When the price hits a good$80/barrel, it'll be worth it.
 2005/9/1-2 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39396 Activity:nil 9/1 Where did Germany get oil from during WWII? \_ A lot came from northern shore, Scandanavia. They also produced oil from coal and gas through fancy (but costly) methods. http://csua.com/?entry=39219 \_ Oil was Germany's weak spot in the war. Hitler's obsession with autarky is a partial explanation for the insane expansionism of Nazi Germany. The change of thrust towards the Caucasus after the takeover of Moscow failed was motivated by oil. -- ilyas \_ Romania (Ploesti) had massive refineries and oil fields. I wouldn't put as much emphasis on German striving for self- sufficiency as, say, Japan (where oil and metal were actually major factors in their going to war with the US) -John \_ err... US was supplying oil and scrap metals to fuel its invasion of China prior to Pearl Harbor...
 2005/8/31-9/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39393 Activity:low 8/31 20 Oil Rigs Missing in Gulf of Mexico. Do I hear an economy deflating somewhere? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050831/pl_afp/usweatheroilgulfrigs_050831213716 \_ Not for guys who build and repair oil rigs. \_ excellent point. Invest in these companies. \_ why such glee at the idea the us economy might tank? \_ I'm not the pp, but I'm happy the economy's going to deflate. Why? Because I'm a big believer in meritocracy, where hard honest working should in fact get more rewards than lazy people or people who simply got lucky. Right now, the economy is run on the Capitalist Monarchy principle. People who own investment houses, gobble up land that many others need and therefore become extremely wealthy, while those that didn't have much to begin with, continue to owe. Don't get me wrong, my father is turning 65 and he is about to hand me 2 rental properties worth well over millions and I should be happy about it. But I feel conflicted, because I didn't do anything to EARN IT. I feel like I cheated meritocracy, big time. I hope the crazy housing market stabilizes to give everyone an equal and honest opportunity to make money. \_ 1) Who told you this was a meritocracy? No country or culture has ever been what you desire. 2) Why do you think that an economic collapse would somehow magically lead to your never-before-seen meritocracy? Maybe you want total anarchy where "merit = force"? You seem conflicted and guilt ridden at being the child of wealthy people. You don't have to accept it. You can donate it if you feel that strongly about it. Why should other people suffer because you feel guilty that you have rich parents? Isn't that rather selfish? \_ Guess who the deflating economy is going to hurt the most? But don't worry, I am sure forcing every rich person in the US to pay Scandinavian taxes will make you feel less guilty. -- ilyas \- i'll be happy with criminal CEOs being assmastered in jail. LIVE AND LET LIVE.
 2005/8/31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39383 Activity:kinda low 8/31 Guess the highest cost for a barrel of crude oil this year. The closest person gets um... uh, to be praised on motd. I don't want explanation or anything. Just the price and your login. \_ $85 - anon01 \_ Why guess? Why not simply bet on it? http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=228266&z=1125523096305 \_$69 - yermom \_ $121 - gwbush  2005/8/26 [Transportation/Airplane, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39287 Activity:low 50%like:39369 8/25 Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! www.veganza.org -John \_ I think you mean http://www.venganza.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster Also known as pastafarians. \_ Unfortunately, there are way more than 17 pirates in the world today. \_ Half-life of C14 is 5730yrs? I thought it was 5400yrs. \_ May all His followers find the right pirate outfits in the closet, so that they can walk out of it and show the world our real strength. RAmen. \_ This starts out as a good "show how silly ID is" bit, but rapidly devolves to stupidity. I think The Onion's "Intelligent Falling" article is much better: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2 \_ But FSM leads to good holiday names like Pastaover and Ramendan.  2005/8/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39251 Activity:moderate 8/24 Why can't we burn trash to power turbines which give us electricity? (Selected trash) \_ It's done now. Google "waste to energy" or "trash to energy". \_ Because it doesn't involve invading another country. \_ Heard of "biomass"? \_ good idea: http://www.nrel.gov/clean_energy/bioenergy.html \_ I believe in the future we will be mining garbage dumps ... If we burn it all up we can't mine it. \_ Mining them for what? Minerals? We burn it all up, those minerals will be in the ash... \_ Actually some are already being "mined" for methane. \_ Mined for the materials we will have run out of, presumably. \_ Pollution? \_ Mr. Fusion won't be invented for another 100 years.  2005/8/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39244 Activity:moderate 8/24 Global Warming is officially irreversible. \_ idiot. 2nd law of thermodynamics ; it'll cool down eventually. \_ sure, in 20000 yrs or so. \_ Will it be before or after Venus cools down? \_ Good. Now I won't have to listen to people whine about it. \_ url? \_ Why?  2005/8/22-24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39209 Activity:kinda low 8/22 Interesting and rather scary article about Saudi oil production in the Sunday NY Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html \. why is it that people like Exxon CEO keep saying that oil prices are way too high and will come down? is it because they don't want alternate enery sources to be developed, or have enery policies aimed at reducing demand implemented, while they continue to make tons of money? \_ If I were the oil companies, I'd have big investments in oil alternatives. Big. There's nothing stopping them from using their current huge profits to ensure their complete dominance of the energy market for decades to come, and long after oil is gone. They just have to update themselves.... \_ What happens when exponentially increasing demand meets arithmetically increasing supply? We're gonna find out. And this just shows that planned economies don't work. China's consuming more and more oil.... \_ most of world's economies are planned, including Japan \_ We're guzzling more oil too, China's %tage increase is just more ... Are we consuming more from year to year than China? Our imports were 2001: 11.8 mb/d, 2002: 11.5 2003: 12.2 2004: 13.1. Since China's oil imports are 2.91 mb/day in 2004, and growing by about 1 mb/d (couldn't find year/year list for China) it looks like our "unplanned" economy is responsible for just as much scarcity. \_ My point is that the unplanned economies are stupidly using oil, and oil's going to get tight in supply compared to demand. Why, then, are "intelligently planned" economies ramping up their use of oil? It's not just stupid market forces, it's stupid planning. What's their excuse? \_ The US uses 100X as much oil per person than China. It seems like it is the unplanned economies that are the problem. \_ Apples to oranges. Drop the 1.3b people in China using near zero oil and compare the non-poverty part of China to the US and see what the numbers look like. The vast majority of China is essentially cut off from the rest of the world and only serves to create bogus statistical per capita comparisons. \_ If you just add up the people in the industrialized provinces, you get 200M or so people. So China is using 1/10th per capita. Still much less. \_ Did you include the tons of toxic waste and air pollution per capita when you did the oil costs since they're using a lot of coal and wood instead of oil? How about what they're doing to their rivers and farm lands? Their production per unit of waste is way too high. Their inefficiency is stunning. \_ don't forget to add to that the waste they ship from the US to dump in china. \_ no one forgot. it doesn't add up enough to matter on these scales. ChiCom troll? Is that you? \_ oh yea? what are they using the coal for? making things for walmart, and motorola, and ge, and ford, ... you whine there's too much pollution when they use coal, you whine that they are destroying the ecosystem when they built the yangtze dam, you whine that they are driving prices high, and threatening the US when they try to buy gasoline. fucking hypocrite. \_ yea, like you care about their rivers and farm lands. all you care is they don't use too much oil that oil price rises. \_ China uses a lot of coal too. Can we account for that? Coal probably produces a magnitude more pollution than gas. \_ yea, they tried going to gasoline, but we can't let them buy unocal. \_ Hi Mr. Nonsequiter troll. No one should have to explain the insanity of selling off an energy resource provider to a hostile competitor. That's a good way to get triple digit price/barrel. \_ we are talking about oil usage and energy usage, not pollution, so you are the non- sequitur troll. \_ no one should have to explain their oil and energy usage when US is using 10x as much per capita. \. why is it that people like Exxon CEO keep saying that oil prices are way too high and will come down? is it because they don't want alternate enery sources to be developed, or have enery policies aimed at reducing demand implemented, while they continue to make tons of money? \_ If I were the oil companies, I'd have big investments in oil alternatives. Big. There's nothing stopping them from using their current huge profits to ensure their complete dominance of the energy market for decades to come, and long after oil is gone. They just have to update themselves.... \_ but that may hurt their existing investments. \_ No, it won't. They'll be completely unable to supply the oil required with all imaginable capacity. They'll \_ And with that money, they can buy any REAL up and coming technology. Stop thinking of them as oil companies. They are energy companies. get full value on all their existing investments, guaranteed. \_ And with that money, they can buy any REAL up and coming technology. Stop thinking of them as oil companies. They are energy companies. \_ They are investing in alternatives, but that doesn't mean they don't want their tax breaks and subsidies for both their "regular" oil business and their minor R&D.. If they keep on saying, high oil prices are just a blip, the less likely Congress and the country will ask for regulation.  2005/8/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39202 Activity:moderate 8/20 Hey is it true Ms. Sheehan is claiming US used nuclear weapons in Iraq? -- ilyas \_ I found one source claiming she said: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now." \_ Yeah... I think maybe she _is_ a nut. -- ilyas \_ I wonder if she's referring to depleted uranium shells? \_ Yah, that's the first thing that came to my mind also. I remember it being an issue of concern that was in media a fair bit. Perhaps she's having a layman's misunderstanding of what it means to be using DU. *shrug* -mice \_ "waging a nuclear war" is pretty unambiguous. \_ It's a commonly used reference to DU in certain circles. You're being obtuse. \_ Ummm... I would suggest that people who change the meaning of well known terms are the ones being obtuse, not the people who are confused by their new usage. Furthermore, I think her presence in those circles pretty much shows her status as a kook. \_ http://www.dubyaspeak.com I guess maybe he _is_ the President. \_ Red herring for the win! \_ The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html \_ So it now becomes an "attack" to quote an individual or recite their actions. How about this: no Gorelick/Clinton "wall" to block Chinagate investigations, Clinton actually actively pursuing terrorists after WTC1, Kenya, Saudia Arabia, Cole, millenium, etc., no 9/11, no GW2. I think her anger may be misplaced. Of course this scenario is also possible: Carter doesn't abandon the Shah to the Soviet backed Islamicists in Iran, militant Islam never takes off. \_ "...heroic Vietnam resumes: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry." Tsk tsk.  2005/8/17-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39147 Activity:nil 8/17 World largest bio-diesel plant to be constructed in Iowa: http://webstar.postbulletin.com/agrinews/283971271149995.bsp \_ Does it output more energy than it takes to grow and transport the soybean? \_ I think we need to work on genetically enginnering an oil producing plant. Something that doesn't spend most of it's energy on infrastructure. Like Trifids!  2005/8/15-17 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Battery] UID:39124 Activity:moderate 8/15 Hack you prius w/ extra batteries to get ~ 80 mpg: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/wip_modified_hy.php \_ Similarly to the 110mpg claims, these are specious; the car with these mods is even less efficient than the stock Prius. You just don't see it as "per gallon" because you're getting energy off the grid, but that power comes from somewhere. -tom \_ "off" -> "from" \_ peon \_ Yeah, it's kind of silly. If you never engage the IC engine does that mean it's "infinity miles per gallon"? Still, it'd a nice idea to extend a hybrid to behave like a pure electric until the juice is nearly gone and then kick in the gas. Of course here in CA where we only burn natural gas for electricity... \_ Another argument for nukular power... \_ No. Only 45% of electricity in CA comes from natural gas. \_ No, only 45% of electricity in CA comes from natural gas. http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2005/july.html Scroll to the bottom. \_ Wow, an actual informative post on motd. Thanks for correcting my misconception. \_ What did you think CA was doing with their nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams? my ride'. WORD." power plants and hydro-electric dams? \_ I was unaware of any working nuclear plants in CA. I'd forgotten about hydro because I was thinking about what were were burning for fuel. \_ Diablo Canyon pics http://www.zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html \_ Am I reading this right? They're planing on going from 2% nuclear last year to 23% nuclear this year? What? How does that work? \_ You're reading it wrong. The right column is for the whole state (in 2004), while the left column is for PG&E only (in 2005). \_ Ah, ok. \_ This is an excel spreadsheet of all the power plants in CA: http://www.energy.ca.gov/database/index.html#powerplants \_ Terrorists could use this info! Oh wait, I forgot that terrorists can only use public info if, by sheer coincidence, hiding that same info might allow some large corporation to hide something. \_ Yes, the 80mpg figures is meaningless. But let's get around the meaningless figures and look at the facts that the silly writing is obscuring. The article says "The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity." So *maybe* it means the extra batteries increases the range by 10 *maybe* it means the extra batteries extends the range by 10 miles. The small text in the picture says the (extra?) batteries cost as little as a quarter to charge. So maybe it means 10 miles per$0.25, or 100 miles per $2.50. From a pure cost-to- consumer's point of view, this is much better than a stock Prius considering that gas is around$2.50/gal these days. considering that gas is around $2.50/gal these days. I hope Mr Gembam, being an engineer, knows that he need to present the data in a clearer way that the author did. \_ It is not necessarily true that the power to recharge the batteries is coming from the power grid. He could have a solar setup at his house that lets him charge the batteries for the prius every night. \_ Solar? at night??? \_ Solar systems charge batteries during the day so that the energy can be used at any time (even night). The batteries charging at his house during the day need not be the ones charging in the car at night.  2005/8/12-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39107 Activity:nil 8/12 Oopsiedoodle! http://csua.org/u/d0y (yahoo! news) "Atmospheric researchers studying global warming have sought for years to determine why readings taken from weather balloons didn't show the same increases as readings on the ground. The difference has fueled skeptics of global warming. "Now, researchers at Yale University say exposed instruments on the balloons may be the problem." \_ Full paper is in /csua/tmp/climate_science_paper_Sherwood_08-12-05.pdf \_ Basically: Ground readings showed increasing temps. High-altitude readings from both weather balloons and satellites showed decreasing temps. Therefore, there was global cooling, since the satellite and weather balloons were more accurate. However, it turns out that the weather balloons in the past registered too hot because of poor shielding from direct sunlight. The new weather balloons are built correctly and register the correct temperatures. This was interpreted to mean: Past, hot; now, cool; therefore cooling. However, with the correct understanding, temperatures measured by the balloons show increases. What about the satellites? Another research group found a mistake in the analysis of temp measurement. The revised calculations show that the satellites are measuring a temperature increase. Three new studies in Science. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093 \_ amazing with what alacrity Science publishes these results but ignores Mann.  2005/8/12-15 [Science/Biology, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39106 Activity:high 8/12 I'm not sure I understand the ID argument. Here is the way that I see the argument: at the moment of the big bang the fundamental constants could have taken on any set of values, however the vast majority of these sets would not give rise to life, so the prob. that the constants have the values necessary for life is so small that it couldn't have occurred w/o intelligent intervention. Isn't this the same as saying that the odds that I have the winning lotto ticket is so small that if I were to win the lottery it was b/c my mom rigged it for me? I don't understand why it is more plausible that there was intelligent design than the fact that we just got lucky? \_ ID is a crock of shit. Why it should be discussed at all is merely an indication of how pervasive religion still is in modern U.S. society. It's a waste of everyone's time, especially the scientific community if they have to address it, and it causes the general populace to ignore more important issues like health care, social security, stem cell research, and who's going to win the World Series. To discuss ID or any other half-baked psuedo-science crap is just a waste of everyone's time. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with pushing a political and religious agenda. If this topic were to be brought up in any other developed country, the proponents would be laughed off the stage. None of what ID says is new, it's merely rehash of the same old arguments that religious zealots have been proposing ever since the Scopes trial. \_ I don't believe in ID, but if it science had all the answers, there wouldn't be an ID. When your religion of science has all the answers, you'll be in a better position to call people names. If this topic were to be brought up in any other developed country, they'd shoot it down in favor of their local version of Creationism. Give a definition of "developed" that doesn't directly include "doesn't believe in ID" and we'll go from there. A real scientist should welcome a debate like this. Real scientists question everything. Real scientists can back up their claims and aren't afraid to drop the false ones. There is no such thing as wasting the time of the general population. That is why we have things like the World Series in the first place. Bread and circuses. \_ Science will never have all the answers; science is a continual process of discovering new questions. Physics, for example, was once believed to be nearing completeness, with only a few minor problems like black-body radiation to work out; those problems led directly to quantum mechanics and the realization that we may never know what's really going on. But ID has no place in a scientific debate. Essentially, ID is "well, science hasn't answered all the questions about evolution, so it must be magic!" -tom \_ Maybe science won't have all the answers because there really is some sort of Divinity? Maybe there really is magic. Until proven otherwise, magic is just as good an answer as "well there is a scientific explanation, but...." That's no different than Faith. And frankly, who cares what the general population thinks anyway? Quantum mechanics *is* magic as far as 99.99% of people are concerned. An explanation people can't understand is no different than telling them "its magic, read this book about this carpenter and don't worry about it". \_ It depends on what your definition of magic is. If the population at large thinks that today's curable diseases are cured because God wants them cured, they'll wonder why we need to support the NIH. If they think that they're cured by magic, but all magic is discovered by magicians who have phd's in subfields of magic like biochemistry, and who need to do magic research that has to be well-funded, that wouldn't be so bad. It is, as you say, roughly the current situation. All this is orthogonal to the ID "debate", however, since ID has nothing to do with either science or philosophy. It's politics, pure and simple. \_ I think you're a good argument against Intelligent Design. -tom \_ Thanks for participating. You added so much to this. I'm not sure why you bothered posting. I'm sorry if my offhand thoughts were too deep for you to respond with anything more than a personal attack. Perhaps we should discuss biking for you instead? \_ The problem for me is that there are some answers \_ The problem for me is that maybe there is an answer out there waiting to be discovered. Putting every- thing down to a rigged deck and leaving it at that seems lazy to me; if you stop asking questions before even beginning to look at the problem, there's no way you're ever going to find any of the answers. There may be other things at work in the creation of the universe than an all or nothing "the physical constants allow for life" or they don't. Perhaps, as someone mentioned a couple days ago, the constants change over time. Perhaps if one changes, the others change to compensate. Or perhaps there are processes involved in the big bang that push the constants into certain patterns, and in the creation of any universe they will always wind up creating conditions conducive to life. This science is so young, there's so much more room for new things to discovered. If we automatically assume a guiding hand and stop there, there's no way we'll ever find real evidence of that guiding hand. -sax \_ I find it a bit odd to have a changing constant. I don't automatically assume a guiding hand. As I said, I don't believe in ID, but there remains no disproof or proof of Divinity as yet. Going back further than the origin on life on this planet to the origin of the universe itself (since you mention that), I find the Big Bang no more convincing than "God did it in 7 days", or "it was magic" or "it was always just there". What preceeded the Big Bang? Where'd all that energy/stuff come from? How long was it there? What is "time"? The Big Bang sounds just like "it was magic" to me. \_ There seems to be some amt of proof that the speed of light and the fine structure constant are changing: http://tinyurl.com/c64o4 (space.com) There is at least 1 theory that says that nothing preceded the big bang. The big bang was a quantum tunneling event where the void tunneled into something. The big bang isn't magic - it is based on observations re the rate of expansion of the universe and on the cosmic background radiation for a start. My understanding is that GR also requires it. \_ Why do you want Baby Jesus to cry? \_ ID does not address big bang, or the origin of life. ID only talks about refuting evolution. So, I can understand why you are confused. \_ Not it's not the same. -- ilyas \_ No it's not the same. In order to avoid having to assume God you would have to assume an infinite number of completely unobservable entities (parallel Universes). God is a pretty expensive assumption, but at some point you have to wonder if the cure is worse than the disease. -- ilyas \_ This is the dumbest and most specious argument ever proposed. The next thing you're going to tell me is that in order to avoid believing that Crusty the Clown exists the bumble bee must would have to be aerodynamically desgned in order to fly. I mean, seriously, if you want to pick a philosophy to dick around with, try Liebnitzian monadism before going back to a Judeo-Christian monotheistic doctrine which doesn't even have a fun and whacky premise that you can chew the fat on during lunch breaks. \_ I think it's spelled 'Krusty the Klown', williamc. -- ilyas \_ (Q1) Is the argument something like: (a) The set of values a given constant can take is an infinite set AND (b) ONLY 1 particular set of values of the constants gives rise to life as we know it THUS (c) The overall probably of this particular set occuring is basically 0 THEREFORE (c) ONLY external intervension could result in this (d) ONLY external intervention could result in this particular set. But this is based on at least 2 unproven (afaik) assumptions: (1) that the set of values that a given constant can take are infinite and unchanging AND (2) ONLY 1 particular set determined at the outset can give rise to life I sucked at math, but I remember that stuff gets really wacky when you are dealing with infinities - couldn't there be an infinite set of values for which life could occur? \_ I don't assume (b). I merely assume the set which gives rise to life is much smaller than the general set, which is reasonable, I think. Most constants will not even give rise to chemistry let alone life. If two sets are infinite, there is a well defined way to talk about their sizes, developed by set theorists. -- ilyas \_ If you don't assume (b), then I don't get it at all. If there might be more than 1 arrangement of the values that the constants could take in order to give rise to life, why is intelligence required to chose our set? It seems more (or at least equally) plausible that the values randomly happened to be ones that gave rise to life. Any books/urls you might recommend re infinite sets comprehensible to a total dumbass? \_ Well, you need to learn about 2 separate issues. The first is how one infinite set can be 'smaller' than another infinite set. For instance the set of all natural numbers is smaller than the set of all reals. Mathematicians say that a set A is smaller than set B if there exists a 1-1 function from A to B. Actually there are 2 generalizations of the conventional notion of 'less than' for infinite sets. The first I just discussed, the second says A is smaller than B if 'you can add 1 a bunch of times to A to get B.' Any basic set theory book will discuss this. The other issue is how to spread a 'finite amount of butter' (probability mass) over an 'infinite amount of bread' (infinite set). For this, you need to understand measure theory. That is a little harder because you also need some real analysis. -- ilyas (Q2) Why do we need an infinite number of parallel universes in order to explain the values of the fundamental constants? (Please see below) (Q1.1) Even if you play exactly 1 game of lotto, the game has to have a result right (ie each ball has to take on a value)? (Q1.2) The prob. that a particular arrangement will result is VERY small, BUT non-zero correct (we are here, thus it has to be non-zero)? (Q1.3) If the prob. is non-zero then this particular arrangement could have occurred naturally right (ie the product of pure chance rather than by design)? (Q1.4) So why is it more likely than not that the outcome was b/c of selection rather than pure chance? \_ Well, even if there is only one Universe, and even if there is no 'intention' involved at all, and even if there aren't any parallel Universes at all, then the there is no 'intention' involved at all then the constants we have could certainly have arisen by blind chance. However, this is even harder to swallow than the similar claim that something like a bacterium can arise from chemistry given a long enough span of time. With the constants, they would have to have assumed their values 'instantaneously' before time even existed per se. -- ilyas \_ There could also be some reason why the constants are the way they are, that has nothing to do with the idea of a creator; there may be meta-forces which tend to cause the constants to be the way they are in our experiential Universe. In any case, positing a creator does not solve the problem of why the universe is the way it is; it only begs the question, why is the creator what he is? -tom \_ There could be. There could be 'meta-forces.' At this point though, you are countering one unfalsifiable claim with another. Didn't you just say science was just a way of discovering more questions? So now you say positing a creator 'begs more questions,' as if that was a bad thing. -- ilyas \_ The difference between tom's meta-forces and the old one is that you might actually figure out whether they exists and why. With the old one you are left with nothing useful. You can never figure out what he/it is made of or why something is the way that it is or what made him. \_ A rose by any other name. Tom's meta-forces is just another label slapped onto something we fundamentally do not understand, and never will. How do you know those 'meta forces' lack intention? Intention obviously exists in the world (us), why the strong bias against it on 'larger scales.'? -- ilyas \_ Maybe because every mysterious force that people once thought was caused by the intention of some deity turned out to have a scientific explanation instead. The god-worshipers have never once been right in thousands of years of human history; why should we assume they're right now? -tom \_ Well, we are now talking not about 'God' per se, but whether some force has intention or not. Science has an extremely poor track record of showing intention in _anything_ by experiment \_ I think scientific explanations by necessity will not involve consciousness or intentionality because those phenomena seem poorly understood, and difficult, maybe impossible, to approach empirically. So of course scientific explanations will not involve 'minds.' Whether 'minds' actually exist in the world is a question I am not sure how to approach. Saying things like 'science never came up with a 'minds' explanation, so 'minds' do not exist!' is silly. An emerging theory of intention and consciousness from empirical science is something I am looking forward to. So far, I have seen things like 'reductive materialism' which don't really address any of the mystery of minds. There are some 'descriptive' things being tossed around, like 'the neural correlates of consciousness.' Again, cataloguing physical events that correspond to internal events is both plagued with difficulties, and leaves many things unexplained. -- ilyas \_ A mind is a processor of sensory information (and emotions/feelings that may be generated by non- conscious coprocessors), that makes decisions. I don't really see huge issues with the theory of conciousness; to me it's a matter of scale. It does get confusing trying to pin down the physical aspects. But I don't see any fundamental problem that would require supernatural explanations. As for intention applied to the universe at large, again I don't see the reason to suppose that is true given how little we understand about it. As Tom points out, this kind of assumption generally turns out to be wrong. And since it raises more questions about the nature of that intention it is a more "expensive" theory to assume. (I know you probably disagree there but I'm not as skeptical about the "unsolved problems" as you appear to be.) \_ I disagree with the "never will." It's possible that at some point people will be able to examine the conditions which gave rise to the big bang. Or create other universes to see how they work. In the long term this continuing scientific examination will have a positive influence on human quality of life. cf. Pasteur questioning assumptions about illness and creating vaccines. cf. Einstein challenging Newtonian physics, leading to quantum mechanics and all sorts of helpful technological innovations. Cutting the funding at "we can't explain it yet, so there must be a benevolent higher being" is in the long term hurtful to humanity at large. \_ What do you mean by intention? Do you mean that there is some intention behind the current state of affairs OR that each person acts out of his/her own intention? I'm not sure I can buy either claim. I don't really see any proof of either. \_ So you think humans lack intention? Do you yourself lack intention? -- ilyas \_ I can't really convince myself that there is anything more than chemical/mechanical stimulus response involved in what is generally termed intention. I also can't convince myself that something intended for us to be here - the dinosaurs would probably still be "ruling" the earth if not for a big rock falling out of the sky. If we were supposed to be here, why let the dinosaurs have at it for millions of years? Just so we could have some nice birds and gas for our hummers? Surely there is a more efficient way. \_ There could very well be nothing more than chemical mechanical stimulus response involved. This does not mean intention does not exist, it obviously exists. You are equating a physical implementation of intention with the impossibility of intention. Or, to put it another way, you are concentrating on describing physical events and making an intuitive argument that there can be no 'floating ghost' associated with these events somehow. I am fairly convinced of the existence of the 'floating ghost' corresponding to myself. -- ilyas \_ I don't get it. If it is all just some chemicals moving around in my head, then where the heck is the "floating ghost"? The sense of "I" seems to me an illusion created by the chemical rxns in my head that makes it easier for the body to survive. \_ "If the functioning of the computer is just semi-conductor electronics, then where the heck is software?" See Goedel/Escher/Bach for the relevant discussion. -- ilyas \_ There's a nice discussion. Why would you think there is a "floating ghost" there? The idea appears to be absurd. Clearly people and animal minds are affected by brain alterations. \_ There clearly _is_ a floating ghost. I don't really understand what you mean by 'consciousness is an illusion.' It has none of the properties of an illusion, it's more correct to say we don't understand what relationship exists between physical events and qualia. I should clarify that when I say 'floating ghost' I do not mean that I am a Cartesian dualist, merely that the human internal world is a real thing, just like software state is a real thing. -- ilyas \_ software state isn't a magical ghost. I don't know what you're going on about. \_ I see, this is just an application to science of the general trend to equate improbability with God. Oh thank God, by a miracle I survived this plane crash! \_ People don't have good intuitions about very small probabilities. I think the way quantum mechanics works, pretty much _anything_ can happen with some positive probability. However, if you look at our macroscoping world, it's very predictable, and random things don't happen. Improbability always leaves you some wiggle room to say things 'just happen,' but given the way low probability events work in practice, you still have some explaining to do. Surviving a plane crash is not even in the same ballpark as instantaneous bacterial self-assembly. -- ilyas \_ Who is claiming that a bateria self \_ In the world of living things, random things seem to happen all the time. Meteors hit, storms arise, water pools in some cave giving rise to a unique creature, etc. Your existence as opposed to some other combination of egg and sperm is almost impossibly unlikely if you look at what had to happen from even that first "magic bacteria". And even though crash survival isn't all that low probability, or winning the lotto, there are loads of examples of people believing it was divine. I was just pointing out the fallacious mode of thought. I think it's pretty safe to assume that bacteria didn't spring into existence fully-formed. As for the constants, well they are observed. It would be like using the improbability of events leading up to your birth as proof that someone designed you to happen, to say that someone had to design the constants to support life. Maybe there are many universes and life is in the one that supports it. \_ Sigh. You didn't even read this entire thread, did you? Anyways, there is so much circularity and repeated arguments here that I am stopping, I think. -- ilyas \_ Who is claiming that a bacteria self assembled? AFAIK, the components of bacteria came from even simpler forms of "life" like rna or its precursors which may self assemble. Also, my understanding is that given enough time every improbable event can occur, so something like rna could have come into being on its own given several hundred million years. \_ No simpler form of of independently replicating life than a bacterium is either known or postulated. The claim about constants spontaneously taking on 'nice values' is even less probable than the bacterium-from-nothing claim, which is why I brought it up. If you claim there is something between bacterium and nothing I invite you to tell me what that something is and how it reproduces. -- ilyas \_ Your claim is false. Other reproducing things as simple as molecules have not only been postulated, but have been shown to exist. In your brain, it's possible for a protein to spontaneously fold in a certain undesirable way. This protein can then catalyze other proteins to fold in the same undesirable way, in the environment of your brain. Similarly, molecule chains which self replicate in the "primordial soup" of the early Earth have been postulated. \_ A prion isn't alive, and a prion is almost certainly not on the evolutionary path between nothing and bacteria. Read what I actually said. -- ilyas \_ What about (s/r)RNA? \_ RNA is a molecule that can reproduce in the right chemical environment. So is the claim nothing -> RNA -> bacterium? -- ilyas \_ The way I understand it it is: basic elements -> organic non- replicating molecules -> RNA -> DNA -> protocells -> { Bacteria, Eukaryotes, Archaebacteria } Something had to come before bacteria b/c mitochondria (which is present in all bacteria iirc) \_ False. Mitochondria are not present in all bacteria. Mostly (exclusively?) in Eukaryotes. were originally a separate form of life. \_ The problem with this picture is that: (a) at the RNA/DNA stage, things don't 'eat' each other, so there is no natural selection. This means, things had to get pretty complex in a random way without the shielding of a cell wall. (b) Nobody knows what protocells look like, even without any burden of falsifying evidence. -- ilyas \_ RNA/DNA don't have to eat each other for NS to work. If one form of RNA replicates faster or is more robust to environmental conditions than other forms its copies will gradually win out over other versions. I agree re proto-cells, BUT clearly a bacterica is not the simplest form of life b/c it is an amalgam of at least two separate more primitive life forms: some sort of cell and what- ever mitochondira was before it was incorporated into a bacteria. And even mito- chondria is pretty complex, meaning it came from something more basic. The problem w/ going back that far is that anything that primative probably (1) didn't get fossilized or (2) got killed by newer forms of life and isn't around anymore. My problem w/ saying that the big guy just put it together, is that it tells you nothing. You can't/don't know why he did it, or how or how he knew how to do it, &c. It also leaves open the question of where the big guy came from and who made him. \_ You're seriously saying that there isn't even a hypothesis about life simpler than a bacteria? Have you read Paul Davies' "The Fifth Miracle"? -emarkp \_ I am sorry, I haven't read Davies' book. What is his theory, other than 'life came from archaea deep underground.' -- ilyas \_ and then I want to ask what this has to do with evolution? It's like saying, "I don't know whether my car was made in Detroit or not, therefor I shouldn't eat any sandwiches today." Regardless of whether there was any higher power at work in the creation of the universe, evolution is a theory whose tenets are demonstrable. \_ If the debate is soley over evolution/natural selection then I don't understand why there is a debate at all b/c natural selection has been demonstrated. \_ this debate is kind of like those mysterious circular patterns that appear overnight in cornfields. some people tried to find the answer to what created them in some natural phenomenon, while others tried to find out if it's some jokers who created them.  2005/8/10-13 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39088 Activity:low 8/10 What's the difference between P(A,B), P(A,B=true), P(A=true,B=true) and P(A|B)? I'm trying to follow the ID thread below. Thx. \_ P(A,B) is a table, with an entry for each possible value combinations of A and B. The numbers in the table have to sum up to 1. Each entry in the table corresponds to the probability of A and B attaining the indexing values. P(A=true,B=true) is a number, the probability that both events happened. P(A,B=true) is a table where each corresponds to some value of A, and means 'probability that A takes on that value and B is true.' P(A|B) = P(A,B)/P(B) where you divide consistent entries. P(A|B) is a table with an entry for each possible combination of values of A and B, where the entry means 'the probability A attains the given indexing value given that the given indexing value of B was observed.' For now you can ignore what happens if A or B range over reals (or take some measure theory). -- ilyas \_ P(A,B) is a table, with an entry for each possible value combinations of A and B. The numbers in the table have to sum up to 1. Each entry in the table corresponds to the probability of A and B attaining the indexing values. P(A=true,B=true) is a number, the probability that both events happened. P(A,B=true) is a table where each corresponds to some value of A, and means 'probability that A takes on that value and B is true.' P(A|B) = P(A,B)/P(B) where you divide consistent entries. P(A|B) is a table with an entry for each possible combination of values of A and B, where the entry means 'the probability A attains the given indexing value given that the given indexing value of B was observed.' For now you can ignore what happens if A or B range over reals (or take some measure theory). -- ilyas [ reformatted - 80x24 formatd ] \_ I was disappointed that the thread got stuck on the argument over observational bias, but never questioned the underlying assumption that an alteration in the universal constants would have precluded life. Life is a powerful phenominon, and there are (at least) two independent instances of it on Earth alone. (e.g. The oxygen based life covering most of the earth and oceans, plus the ferric/ferrous based life found in the heat vents around Seven Mile Trench and lots of mines and a river in Spain) -mel \_ I was assuming life cannot arise without powerful energy sources like stars which an alteration of constants would likely not produce. Why did I assume this? Because life is a 'low entropy' process, and such a process needs a lot of energy coming down to maintain itself. These 'two independent instances' aren't really independent (they arose from a common ancestor) they just use a different metabolic mechanism. Many other metabolism types were used at various points in Earth's life. -- ilyas These 'two independent instances' aren't really independent (they arose from a common ancestor) they just use a different metabolic mechanism. Many other metabolism types were used at various points in Earth's life. -- ilyas \_ My mistake in calling the ferrooxindans independent. Obviously since they have DNA and a biological cell, there is a common ancestor involved. A better point I should have made regarding them is that most people would have trouble imagining life existing without oxygen, but these bacteria do that just fine. I doubt that life in a more generic sense has all that strict a set of requirements on what environmental conditions under which SOMETHING will evolve. -mel \_ Origins are a problem. -- ilyas \_ URL? \_ google "ferrooxidans" -mel \- hello, it is true that is if you tweak certain numbers you cannot have even matter [like without CP violation you cannot explain why we dont have a lot of anti- matter hanging around], while tweaking yet other numbers would not allow nuclei to form, this would would live in a soup of only elementary particles (although possibly some rarely seen ones like the OMEGA- made from SSS). However, there are some free parameters which if tweaked slightly IN ISOLATION we still could get a pretty similar universe in terms of large structure. However it is possible something like the water molecule would not exist. Water is not important to cosmology but it is obviously important to LIFE. If something like the FERMI CONSTANT were different it would change the energy of the fundemantal reactions in the stars which would in turn change their geometry and power spectrum ... so again large con- sequences for "life" and our solar system, but at the large scale and with a "non-antropic eye" the universe may not be too different [there is actually more to the Fermi value, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion]. One may also wish to explore what is the fundamental cause of the PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE of FERMIONS which allows for elements and chemistry to exist via the AUFBAU PROCESS (I am not very familar with this area of summersymmetry but if the world were made out of the integral spin ss cousins of the electron, photon etc, i believe the universe would turn into one GIANT ATOM/BOSE CONDENSATE). i believe speculating in terms of these free parameters is about the only reasonably way to look at this. you cant arbitrarily ask "what if there was no conservation of mass-energy" ... you have to replace it with something you can plug into equations. You may wish to learn about the CKM MATRIX. ok tnx. universe would turn into one GIANT ATOM/BOSE CONDENSATE). i believe speculating in terms of these free parameters is about the only reasonably way to look at this. you cant arbitrarily ask "what if there was no conservation of mass-energy" ... you have to replace it with something you can plug into equations. You may wish to learn about the CKM MATRIX. ok tnx. [ reformatted - 80x24 formatd ] \_ Water is very important to life on Earth, but in a universe where water didn't exist, there is little reason to believe that no other compound would supply a similar role as a convenient solvent. Removing basic rules like Pauli Exclusion or Conservation of Energy is outside the scope of what interests me. As for learning about the CKM Matrix, I still recall the sequence up, down, strange, charm, beauty and truth even a decade or two out of my last Physics class. The interestng question to me is what the minimal set of requirements are to generate an evolutionary system. -mel \_ Did I say "up down" or "top bottom"? Sigh. This isn't my day for accuracy. Time to go to sleep -mel \- 1. top and bottom have won out over truth and beauty. 2. second, those 6 quarks dont form a sequence ... there are 3 (+2/3,-1/3) charge pairs falling into 3 mass generations. their masses are 1/3 of the free parameters in the std model. 3. speculations based on minor tweaks like if the earth were 10 percent larger or 10% closer to the sun or had a greater tilt or weaker van allen belt etc may be perfectly interesting but those are not really cases of "the laws of physics being different" or "the nature of the universe being different" ... those are accidental details in a way things like the CKM matrix coefficients are not. when you are talking about something like the standard model, "emergent phenomena" is things like stars and elements and chemical phenomena ... it's still a long way from DNA. 4. "life" may have been able to overcome the consequnces of certain fundamental changes [like changing some masses would cause the list of stable isotopes to change, so "life" would have to pick some different chemical pathways, since the relative abun- dances would greatly shift], but there are other changes which are so massive, life obviously could not have evolved ... like if it were not possible to form stable nuclei -> no atoms -> no chemistry. 5. my point was without some knowledge of "the standard model" you cant tell which "tweaks" are "surivivable" and which lead to a "boring universe" and which are some where in between. chemistry to exist via the AUFBAU PROCESS. ok tnx.  2005/8/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39068 Activity:low 8/9 "I worked in oil refineries for nearly a decade, and there's nothing I enjoyed more than SUV owners complaining to me about gas prices. I've been out of refineries for the past three years, and now that prices have really taken off, I'm sure I've missed many more of those wonderful discussions." - w00t! The Oil Moat: http://csua.org/u/cz2 \_ "No new refineries have been built in the United States in more than 20 years, and judging by the popularity refineries hold in the public imagination, I'm pretty sure there won't be any new plants added soon." Huh. I live very close to a refinery, and I both like the way it looks and the way it smells. Apparently that is a minority opinion. \_ I like the cancer and other disease the best! \_ Evidence? \_ Uhm, Google? \_ Although refinery capacity is running very tight now, many of the refeneries have been expanding output continually for decades. \_ An economy of scale would fix the problem: http://csua.org/u/cz9 (SFGate.com, McCain Presidency)  2005/8/8-11 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Health/Women] UID:39053 Activity:nil 8/8 Anyone else going to Linux World Expo tomorrow? -jrleek \_ well, I don't know, are they gonna have beautiful women with bikini, kind of like what they have for Nascar or Indy-500 where georgeous women surround Linux PCs instead of race cars? \_ Will it be anything like this picture of E3? http://www.seanbaby.com/e32001/images/fatty.jpg  2005/8/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39044 Activity:nil 8/8 Iran resumes fuel cycle work http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0809/p02s01-wogi.html  2005/8/5-7 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39021 Activity:nil 8/5 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4748027.stm How long does radiation last? Are babies born there weird? Do they have 3 eyes or 3 legs? \_ http://csua.org/u/cyb  2005/8/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance] UID:39018 Activity:nil 8/5 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html "Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of 'scholars' whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers." "... supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence." "...discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, ... impression that the issue is still unresolved." \_ Insert obligatory NYT bashing. \_ Supply-side economics is pseudo-science now? -- ilyas \_ it depends on what he meant by "never been backed by evidence" \_ I think this 'never been backed by evidence' claim is pretty stupid. The problem is, doing real empirical work to test 'big theories' in economics amounts to experimentation on humans, so people tend to invent new theories when old ones no longer explain what's happening, rather than explain the humans, so people tend to invent new theories when old ones no longer explain what's happening, rather than explain the 'experimental data someone collected.' -- ilyas \_ ^pretty stupid^his conclusion as an expert in the field of economics \_ This is where I bring up that supply-side first arose because Keynesian economics didn't correctly explain what was happening in the 70s. But yeah, it's all pseudo-science with pseudo-scholars. No real economists are proponents of supply-side, it's all right-wingers and fundies. Such utter dumbassery. -- ilyas \_ No serious economist believes that cutting taxes always increases government revenue. So it is a bit of a straw man, but apparently believed by you. \_ No, I think the original claim was talking about supply-side economics as 'bad science,' it is you who is now trying to beg off on some weaker version of the original retarded statement. No supply-sider believes the statement you just made. -- ilyas  2005/8/4-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39008 Activity:kinda low 8/4 Alot of people use black backgrounds on their X sessions, does that help cut down the monitor wear and tear? (black == no need for gun to fire). If so, what is the equivalent color for an lcd? I believe that it defaults to white and the colors are added by electricity turning on the pixel, so should I turn all my -bg to white? Or does it matter at all? Thx. \_ People still use CRT to do text work (coding, etc.)!? That's crazy! Anyway, on LCD, it's actually better to have whites, as it lets the screen cool down ever so slightly. Basically, it crazy! Anyway, on LCD, it's actually better to have whites, as it lets the screen cool down ever so slightly. Basically, it doesn't matter for LCDs. \_ i do it because I find it easier to read yellow on black on a screen, which is opposite from what is easier for me to read on paper (black on white) \_ well, the issue is really with glare. it's not easier to read white paper when it's, say, in direct sunlight. \_ well, the issue is really with glare. it's not easier to read white paper when it's, say, in direct sunlight. \_ Yep. I use white on black on computers because it's shining out at me like stars, not like light bouncing off a piece of paper (which in bright sunlight would also be easier to read as black on white). I don't know if it's actually harming my eyes anyway though. I think extended computer use and book reading fucked up my eyes anyway. \_ mine is green on black because I loved my commodore pet. \_ mine is white on midnight blue because I loved my SGI setup \_ My text windows on my CRT are white on black, because I guess it cuts down wear and tear, cuts down radiation on me, and cuts down energy consumption. All are just guesses though. energy consumption.  2005/8/3-4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38956 Activity:nil 8/2 Read NRO writer's last column (dated yesterday) before he was shot to death in Iraq http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200508020823.asp \_ typical conservative column. Blame it on the Iraqis! \_ Huh? The article is almost entirely a quotes from the Manager of the Power Distribution Directorate. Nor does it shy away from meantioning that we destroyed a lot of the infrastructure. What, exactly, is your problem with it?  2005/8/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38915 Activity:nil 8/1 The China thread below is interesting. Why is it that neither of the major political parties seem to talk about globalization from any perspective? This is probably the most important issue we face as a nation and a planet at the moment, yet nobody talks about it besides some nutty neo-Marxists. It seems to me that the first political party that articulates an effective response to the uncertainty we are faced with will reap huge benefits... \_ Peak oil is actually the most important issue we face, followed closely by global warming. \_ I disagree. A substitute will be found for oil and there's nothing we can do about global warming, if it's even real. Terrorism is important, but fundamental. Globalism is something that affects us now and will affect us in the future. It is the nothing we can do about global warming, if it's even real. Terrorism is important, but fundamental. Globalism is something that affects us now and will affect us in the future. It is the largest looming threat to "the American way of life". \_ Yep. Now again my question - why isn't anyone really addressing this? --op \_ This substitute for oil better show up real quick because many predict global oil production peak within 5 years. \_ People predict all kinds of things. \_ there are many substitutes for oil already. it's just that it wasn't cost effective to use them when oil price is low. that's not to say I don't support energy conversation. \_ The Democratic Party opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, etc, mostly because of union pressure. The Tancredo wing of the Republican Party is always griping about immigration. These are two facets of what are you calling "globalization." If you read The Economist, every other article is about globalization. But you are generally correct, both parties don't really want to talk about it, probably because it is too complicated to expliain in 10 second sound bites.  2005/7/29 [Science/GlobalWarming, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:38877 Activity:nil 7/28 I used to be young, idealistic, and optimistic. I had a job, quit my job, and started helping people out to make the world a better place. Then as I got older, I realized the world doesn't want to be better. The old people don't like to be told by youngin's how they should live their lives, and the really poor people are actually pretty stubborn and most importantly, conservative. People are they way they are, because they unwilling to listen to you, to make changes, or to be helped. The world doesn't need another fucking idealist. So fuck the world, fuck social programs, fuck volunteering, fuck Peace Corp, fuck everything that trys to make the world better, because the world doesn't want to be made better. \_ You may want to read the Book of Ecclesiastes. -- ulysses \_ And finally, fuck you. \_ The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears he may be right. -- ilyas \_ Actually, I'm happier knowing there are more idealists in the world (at least those idealists that use violence as a last but necessary resort, e.g., Gulf War 1, WW2, Korean War). Do what I do: Be practical, but inside, be idealistic, but try not to admit to it. The practical side of you may have recognized that people resent it when you single them out for charity (giving money to beggars), but they will accept freely if it is part of a formal process that most people see as fair (Social Security, Medicare, universal health care, etc.). \_ Heh. 'Most.' So are you liberals a persecuted minority or not, make up your fucking mind. \_ 72% of Americans support universal health insurance. That sounds pretty moderate to me. \_ 55% of Americans (including 47% of Kerry voters) believe "God created humans in present form". 27% believe "humans evolved, God guided the process". A mere 13% believe "humans evolved, God did not guide process". About 2/3 of Americans want creationism taugh along with evolution. What do I believe? I believe if the majority of Americans believes in something, run away from it, fast. \_ Hi troll!  2005/7/24-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38797 Activity:low 7/25 Pollution fighting concrete, &c. http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,68282,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6 7/24 34 threads, 780 lines, 157 replies, 22.9 lines/thread, 4.6 replies/thread stddev: 28.0 5.9  2005/7/20-22 [Finance/Investment, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38743 Activity:nil 7/21 http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=10958 Ugliest dog. \_ That thing is ALIVE? It looks like some kind of mummified rat. \_ Poor thing. yeah it's fucking ugly, but it's got all sorts of horrible diseases. old diseased, toothless, skin and bones people in their deathbed don't look too hot either. \_ Here's another picture of it: http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2005/07/another_image_o.html \_ That dog looks like Salacious Crumb. True Star Wars geeks will know who Salacious Crumb is.  2005/7/20 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38721 Activity:nil 7/20 I lived at this cabin last week where everything's powered by a portable generator. The owner said the biggest hog is the refrigerator, which got me to wonder... most of the power consumption from an AC or refrigerator is from the compressor right? It seems to me that it is a lot of waste to have to generate electricity first (+50% energy lost?) then use that electricity to crank the compressor (another +50% energy lost?). Is it possible to create a frig where the compressor is cranked directly by small engines like the ones used in portable generators? \_ Ice is civilization!!!! \_ Of course. That's how very early refrigerators worked. It's just that most people don't like to have internal combustion engines in their homes. \_ Maybe not in their homes, but in places like the wilderness where power is more precious and fresh air is easily and readily to be polluted, it would seem to make sense to place an engine powered refrigerator. \_ Ok, sure. All I meant was, yes they exist. Down below is a link to how they work. Google for "propane refrigerator" if you want to buy one. \_ There are natural gas powered refrigerator. Kinda anti-intuitive. NG is used as a power source to turn the compressor. \_ http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm  2005/7/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:38679 Activity:nil 7/18 More "cold" fusion results: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050712.Xu.fusion.html \_ So, this could possibly produce net energy gain? \_ A different article I read on this quite some time ago said no way, it was only interesting in a theoretical sense. \_ That's cool, I'm all for improving our understanding of fusion. It just that the article is half about how fusion is going to solve all of our energy problems. \_ [elevated] \_ Someone posted on 4/27: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050425/full/050425-3.html  2005/7/14-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38614 Activity:nil 7/14 Follow up re Gravity Wave lecture - mostly intended for a lay person, though the answers to the technical questions re objects that could generate gravity waves did have some info I didn't know about (apparently gravity waves have been detected indirectly by observing the rate of change of the orbits of a binary puslar and seeing that the change is exactly the amount that would be caused by radiating energy in the form of gravity waves).  2005/7/14-15 [Transportation/Car, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38613 Activity:low 7/14 Cost Guard building a bio-diesel boat: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/uscga/newsstoriesread3462.htm \_ Something's wrong, the whole point of biodiesel is that it works as a replacement for petroleum diesel without any modifications. This seems like PR spin. \_ Isn't biodiesel a lot cruddier? \_ I believe it has a little bit less energy per unit volume, but has better lubricating properties. \_ ObYermom  2005/7/12-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38581 Activity:moderate 7/12 This discussion of Sith Lord Rove bores me, so I will query the motd environmentalists again. Assuming your worst fears about global warming were true, and you had the license to applications of power to fix the situation, what would you do? -- ilyas \_ I blame global warming on capitalism, a system that over-uses and over-produces goods, plunders precious gifts that our mother nature gave us just for the selfish goal of pleasure. Hence to combat global warming, I would first seize power and turn the entire Earth to communism. Then I'll stop productions on unnecessary consumer goods and get rid of home ownership so that the government can issue nearby housing to reduce traffic. I'll also require everyone to take classes that expose them to the pleasure of being in-tune with mother nature and to share resources with the community. I'll offer free birth control to slow down population growth. I'll offer FREE education to everyone, a system based solely on meritocracy (no more Ivy League style admissions). I'll setup a national R&D center that researches renewable resources. Doing all of the above will reduce usage of massive raw materials that were once needed in capitalism, but no longer needed in our new communism. Doing so will raise the quality of living especially those in 3rd world countries, but will surely piss off overly spoiled Americans with whom I'll appease with "Soma" pills. \_ off the top of my head, I'd venture the following policy changes: - Stop subsidizing oil in all forms: exploration, processing, research, etc. This should have the effect of raising the gas tax affecting supply & demand, as well as affecting all oil consuming industries. - For non-oil based global warming pollution, I would implement something similar: (a) eliminate gov't tax breaks, subsidies, (b) if that's not enough to dampen emissions, enforce some sort of emissions protocol similar to kyoto, or perhaps stronger: something that forces corporations to pay for the real-cost of polluting, making it an incentive for them to find ways not to pollute. - Invest a heavy sum:$10-50 billion dollars into alternative energy R&D firms: eg. fuel cells, solar, wind, nuclear fusion, ... - Establish & fund a dept. within EPA concerned with global warming, and enable it to fund grants studying causes of global warming, and possible solutions. This latter is critical, as we need more science about causes and solutions. - Establish some sort of budgetary allotment for future years to invest in gov't implementation of the previous two items. - Engage the U.N. and other countries on emissions treaties like Kyoto, and push for stricter treaties that encompass all nations, developing or not. Perhaps meet with developed economies to find some sort of economic fund to incentivize developing economies. I don't think we're going to reverse global warming without some serious pains. The economy will suffer setbacks. The first two items above will cripple certain industries, but the survivors will be much stronger companies. The implementation of the first two may have to be phased in over a short period, to avoid an "imminent" crippling blow. Even if they weren't, the industries would survive: (cf. 9/11 & airlines). I need to think more about what to do about other countries. -nivra other countries. \_ The point I am trying to make here is lowering the temperature a very small fraction \epsilon costs big money (many billions of dollars). I think treaties like Kyoto are mostly stupid for this reason. I think a much more reasonable approach would be to have 'commons rent' for both corporations and individuals, and funnel the money into R&D that directly fights the threat. -- ilyas \_ Yes, but there's a time horizon issue. Any R&D into research that does what you say (eg. directly remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere), and then implementation of said research solutions has a fairly long time-line. There may be a critical tipping point, and reducing current emissions, altho more costly, helps the situation immediately. As an aside, why would you introduce a "commons rent," rather than a a direct fee assessed to polluters? Isn't the latter more libertarian? -nivra libertarian? \_ I take a 'commons rent' to mean a general mechanism by which a fee is assessed from any entity that uses a 'commons,' proportional to the use of said commons, and which is used for maintaining that commons and repairing 'use damage.' I am not sure how that differs from what you are proposing. I am not using standard terminology, as far as I know 'commons rent' is a term I made up. It is true that things like Kyoto help things _now_, but that's about the only saving grace they have. I frankly think they do more harm than good, regardless of what the whole story on global warming is. -- ilyas \_ I take a 'commons rent' to mean a general mechanism by which a fee is assessed from any entity that uses a 'commons,' proportional to the use of said commons, and which is used for maintaining that commons and repairing 'use damage.' I am not sure how that differs from what you are proposing. I am not using standard terminology, as far as I know 'commons rent' is a term I made up. It is true that things like Kyoto help things _now_, but that's about the only saving grace they have. I frankly think they do more harm than good, regardless of what the whole story on global warming is. -- ilyas \_ "proportional to use?" or "proportional to abuse?" Also, your response fails to address the time horizon issue. Also, I'm not that sure that "proportional to abuse" won't be so different from what I proposed above. Removing tax breaks and trying to implement some sort of "real-cost" accountability program for polluters is similar. Anytime you implement real-cost solutions, industry will be hit, and this will help supply & dem. to limit current emissions. -nivra \_ I think the general commons problem is too complex to treat here. My intuition is that 'abuse' should not be treated by economic means. If someone hoses the commons so much that NOBODY can get any use out of it, it doesn't seem like assessing rent is the commons so much that NOBODY can get any use out of it, it doesn't seem like assessing rent is the appropriate response. At any rate, leaving those issues aside, you can get a lot of use out of 'commons rent' for reasonable use. 'Abusing' the environment would be like setting off nukes for profit. At this point you start putting people in prison. -- ilyas \_ fine. But the current situation has "abuse." Certain corporations are polluting greenhouse gases to a proportion way more than other corporations and invididuals. corporations and invididuals. -nivra \_ So there is a line between 'use' and 'abuse.' For me, 'abuse' is when you hose things so much it interferes with others using the commons. I take it you want to other countries. libertarian? I am not using a standard terminology, as far as I know 'commons rent' is a term I made up. -- ilyas I take it your perception of the dividing line has something to do with your intuition you have to charge more than proportional rent from 'big users,' per the usual liberal has something to do with your intuition you have to charge more than proportional rent from 'big users,' per the usual liberal progressiveness. -- ilyas \_ no. proportional is entirely fair. The key is how you calculate it. Truly proportional commons rent would be a fantastic idea. The major environmental problems we have today are due to exploitation of public resources by a few individuals/corporations who are not paying anything close to "proportional" costs for the public resources they utilize. Some (not me, b/c I haven't looked into it enough) may argue that current emissions have already crossed the line from "use" into "abuse." The earth has a sustainable level of greenhouse gases it can support in the atmosphere above and beyond what would naturally be present if no human emissions occurred. However, enormous levels of emissions beyond this sustainable level has "hosed things so much" that everyone has to curb back emissions in order to avoid hosing the earth as we know it. -nivra \_ We're all bored of you too, ilyas. \_ Raise gasoline tax rate to 100%. \_ Unleash my gasoline-eating nano-bots in the oil-wells. \_ Sacrifice a half-wit libertarian to the earth goddess. \_ seclude myself in an island paradise with a bevy of maidservants to meditate upon the solution \_ I'd split the US into two. The Union and the Confederate. All the Confederates can do what they've always wanted, like making abortion illegal, repeal ALL firearms control for unlimited rights to use use and carry assault rifles/grenades/artillery units, putting gays and lesbians into re-education internment camps, give extra tax incentives for the expansion of our new government (Walmart), legalize shooting and killing immigrants, and most importantly, legalize incest. The Union on the other hand should do what they've always wanted, like raising tax back to ~60% like the pre-Reagan social-communist era, legalizing gay marriage & marijuana, and encouraging sodomy on public media. \_ I'd split the US into 2 and put all the dumbass stereotype spitting morons like you on an island and the rest of us could get on with life. \_ As President of the United States, I would say that the scientific consensus is that a significant proportion of the warming of the earth in the last 100 years is from humanity's emission of greenhouse gases. I would say that a small minority of established scientists believes that this is not true. As such, I would like to work with developed and developing countries toward creating a progressive but fair energy policy, mindful of both the current situation and future predictions of who will be contributing the most to global warming. mindful of both current and future predictions of who will be contributing to global warming. This is in contrast to Dubya's position in which he puts the small minority ahead of the scientific consensus. [Yeah, I'm setting tone, not really spelling out a plan, but isn't that what Dubya does?] \_ I would lie and dissemble and try to twist the facts to the point that the public was paralyzed into inaction. Then I would hope and pray I died before the problem really came to light and pass it on to the next generation for them to fix with their superior technology. Hey, I should get me a job with the White House! \_ Wow ilyas. You have superior troll fu. I salute you! \_ Terra-form mars - we need to get off this planet quick. I'd increase funding for fusion and matter-antimater research b/c we need Zefram Cochrane to invent warp drive and save humanity. \- the "if you were king" phrasing is sort of silly. what makes the difficult are the structural issues that make coordination/ cooperation hard. i would make pol pot type arbitrary cooperation difficult. i would make pol pot type arbitrary decisions about what rights to give to people. \_ I wouldn't. Enlightened dictatorship is a dangerous fantasy. The 'if you were king' is a meaningful question about what one would want in an ideal situation. This gives me information \_ I hope you weren't serious about that last part. -- ilyas \- i sort of am. if i became king of the earth, on a bad day i'd probably be more like saloth sar/pol pot than say the sultan of brunei or stalin or your avg african kleptocrat. \_ Yeah, terraforming mars would be so much easier than cleaning up Earth. \_ How lame. So you are going to pattern yourself after a butcher. Good for you, Mr. Kantian. Anyways, this is probably why !psb is a perennial candidate. -- ilyas \- well i am distinguishing between various butchers. my point was i would probably put various people to death for "decadence". actually i would have then tomented via "symbolic restribution" and then maybe put them to death. \_ If you are distinguishing between various butchers you, once again, are missing the point. By your own description, the only thing stopping you from monstrosity is the threat of violence. In other words, you are immoral. -- ilyas \- i am not defending this as moral but if i were king, i would put many decadent cockroachs to death and torment. \_ Go you... \_ I would use the Swift Sword of Death. -geordan
 2005/6/29-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38355 Activity:nil 6/30 Good, it's about freakin' time. (ITER site decided: France) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/international/europe/28cnd-fusion.html?oref=login \_ Damn they move slowly: "Officials involved in the reactor project said they hoped the agreement would be signed by the end of the year, allowing work on the reactor to begin next year and ground to be broken at the Cadarache site in 2008. Current plans foresee the reactor operating in 2015. Construction of the reactor is expected to cost $5 billion ..." \_ Seriously. We should just build our own after NIF construction is completed. I think Sphereomak!  2005/6/28-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38335 Activity:high 6/29 SFChron reports on UC Scientist who claims ethanol costs more energy to make than it delivers. http://csua.org/u/cj8 Tell that to the brazilians: http://tinyurl.com/7h2aw \_ Tell that to the brazilians: http://tinyurl.com/7h2aw \_ sugar cane != corn \_ Ethanol == Ethanol \_ sure, but the energy calculation is totally different for different kinds of plants. -tom \_ Sugar cane, IIRC, is one of the most agrochemical intensive crops. They didn't mention fertilizer and nitrogen plume issues in that article at all. I wonder what the long term effects of so much nitrogenous stuff migrating into the rivers, lakes and oceans will be. I've read in the lit that ocean algae prod is primarily limited by rare metals such as iron, so maybe there won't be an effect. \_ corn != link:csua.org/u/cja --danh \_ Recent article in June(?) Nat. Geog. about this: how agri. runoff was overfeeding the Potomac and destroying the entire area.  2005/6/25-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38300 Activity:moderate 6/24 a comment on Eminent Domain. This is what is happening in beijing every day. a lot of Beijing denizens' properties are being seized give out to developers for the sake of city revitalization, etc. \_ That's ok, China is seen by the world in a more favorable light than the states. \_ "Less worse". -John \_ China destroys cities to build the greatest Dam and hydro generator in the world for the benefit of 10 million men. The State destroys houses to build the greatest building in the United States for the benefit of 100 million Americans-- Walmart \_ Then Walmart is more cost-effective than China.  2005/6/25-27 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38297 Activity:nil 6/24 Someone was asking for attribution for this quote: "the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." This is from Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington \- The explosion with Serge Lang [occasional UCB Math] was kind of funny. It ocurred about when Kenneth Waltz [fmr UCB Political Sci.] was the President of the American Political Science Assn. There are definitely some social scientists who got carried away with things like game theory or chaos theory, including pretty prominent people. Waltz is a great prof, and this controversy put him in an awkward situation. BTW, for an well-thought out and not super difficult or specialized theory of the sources of inter-state conflict see Waltz59: Man, the State, and War. It disagrees with ideas such as "dominating source of conflict will be cultural" from Huntington.  2005/6/20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38209 Activity:nil 6/20 Arvin, you have to realize that the entire world is engaged in a conspiracy to confuse and befuddle emarkp. They're all just out to make his ideas look crazy, and his arguments insane. \_ emarkp, jblack, williamc, and GWB have something in common. They never re-examine their positions. They never reflect. They never admit mistakes. \_ Facts, figures, statistics... none of them matter to GWB and his supporters. As long as they have faith or ideologies they strongly believe in, nothing in the world matters to them.  2005/6/13-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38106 Activity:nil 6/13 This is pretty great. "How to marry a man and a horse." (Handfasting is the wiccan word for wedding) http://csua.org/u/cc9 \_ I thought it's about a woman marrying both a man and a horse, so \_ I thought it's about a woman marrying to both a man and a horse, so that the man can feed her kids and the horse can feed her.  2005/6/13-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38095 Activity:low 6/12 Nuclear power might be unsustainable: http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen \_ Refuted: http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm (search for Jan Willem) \_ You better be a dumb undergrad, oops, I mean, uh, learning? \_ What's wrong with the claims? -- !OP \_ They're confusing and they have all the data in PDFs. It's possible they're right, but they need to present the data and analysis more cleanly, so that scientists can more easily point out important true points and big mistakes. The conventional wisdom in the scientific community is that nuclear power is much more efficient than coal/gas/oil especially in terms of environmental impact, except when you have a problem you really have a problem (nuclear waste leaks, nuclear meltdown, planes flying into nuclear power plants, breakout into nuclear arms), and there is no pressing natural resource issue at the rate we are adopting nuclear power. I repeat: They /might/ be right, but they need to be more clear by: Getting the stuff out of PDFs and have "current belief" vs. "correct belief" comparisons and persuasive explanations for how/why the discrepancies came to be. \_ I agree with most of your points, except it's really hard to store nuclear waste, and you have to do it for 50,000 years. \_ It's a whole heck fo a lot easier to store than the waste from burning coal. \_ How, exactly, do you figure?  2005/6/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38034 Activity:low 6/8 "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents. In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved." http://csua.org/u/cai (nytimes.com) \_ Thanks anon. W/o I would believe the Bush administration is filled with honest, non-partisan ex-industry officials here for our own good and not out to make money in life. \_ Kind of sad that we're so jaded that this kind of Orwellian document editing isn't even surprising or worth mentioning any more. \_ "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell \- "The quality of many who people our public life--that is not democracy, it is disarray, it is free-fall." ... "Governance", [Arun Shourie] argues, "is not golf: that we are a democracy does not entitle us to a handicap." \_ "In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, a single word of truth sounds like a pistol shot." -- Czeslaw Milosz \_ was this written by Jayson Blair? \_ Mmm, straw man. You can get this particular piece of news from whichever source you like. It's pretty cut and dried.  2005/6/7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38000 Activity:low 6/6 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8124325 US has 2% of the world's oil reserve. Sucks to be US. \_ Actually it doesn't suck. The US *was* endowed with more oil than almost any country in the world, and that is one reason for our current superpower status. We have just used most of it up. \_ I do not think the above statement is true, sorry. \_ Duh.. \_ We are still the #3 producer of oil in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. \_ http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html  2005/6/3-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37960 Activity:nil 6/2 The fourth world, I like that idea: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_271.html  2005/6/2-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37945 Activity:nil 6/2 The Governator's Solar Roof Plan passes: http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/11790776.htm  2005/5/29-31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37885 Activity:moderate 5/29 Here is my stupid question of the day. Why we are on North Korea? So what if they test their nuclear bomb? They have withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. and There is not much we can do within the bounds of international law that we can condamn them for, no? \_ because they are likely to sell their nuclear secrets to whoever has money (ie, muslim oil exporting countries). \_ Pakistan has done just that. What kind of punishment did they get again? \_ A handshake for being a great partner in the war on terror, then a few months later a few billion in arms sales. \_ This is just one liberal, Bush-haters point of view, so take it for what it is worth, but I think we are on North Korea because it is run by a dangerous egomaniacal nutjob who is busy starving his people and acting irrationally in the International community. Kim Jong Il is not someone I would trust with a chiansaw, much less nuclear weapons, I would trust with a chainsaw, much less nuclear weapons, but then again, I get all my information about him from the Western media, so maybe I am misinformed. \- Greetings, Earthlings! --k.j. il \_ I am not saying it is right or wrong. just wondering rather we have the legal ground to take any actions or not. Since neither India nor Pakistan nor Israel are being punished for \- the united states did "punish" india/pak in the sense that it took certain actions it would have not otherwise taken 'against' them, but yeah that isnt punishment in the sense of "justice meted out by a sovereign". "tribal sovereignty means that it is sovereign". -BUSHCO. --psb having a nuke, since there are 30k Americans within 30 miles of N.Korea's border, If I am Kim Jong Il, I will have all the reason to have nukes... \_ "legal ground" assumes there exists a central authority who writes the law and enforces the law. UN is an attempt but historically, "legal ground" between countries comes down to who has a bigger muscle. For example, American Indians have no legal ground to live in fertile land, Spaniards have no legal ground to claim California, native Hawaiians have no legal ground to run their tribal government, and Sadam Hussein has no legal ground to run his regime. \- well you can argue if a state does something contravening a treaty they have signed, even in the abscence of a a central authority, they have done something illegal. *if* india had signed the NPT, the us could have claimed what india did was "illegal". \_ Just for the record, NK DID sign the NPT. They just dropped it when they were caught developing nukes. -jrleek http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB87  2005/5/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37844 Activity:high 5/26 Hybrid Gas Savings Calculator: http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=Gas_Savings \_ I think it's off. Toyota representative in Japan (Toyota City) told my brother that realistically, one couldn't really recover the initial cost differences with fuel savings within the life span of the car... for now. \_ Wow! I guess my next car will be a hybrid. \_ DUMB. The best way to save money is to USE LESS ENERGY. What is it with you SUV loving Liberals trying to spend an enormous amount of time and money trying to extract cheaper forms of energy? The best way to save economically and ecologically is to simply USE LESS ENERGY. Drive less, bike more, move closer to work. -Bike Liberal \_ Yes, this makes absolute sense. In fact, the best way to utilize less energy is to just stop producing electricity. That way all of society uses less energy. I think that's a really great solution. Or we can just depopulate the earth. The less people there are the less energy we will use. Of course, depopulating the earth may cost a bit of energy up front, but I'm sure we can find efficient ways to do this. \_ And what exactly do you think a hybrid does? it USES LESS ENERGY. it uses energy more efficiently than others. For some people a bike is not an option. Try carrying two kids to day care safely on your bike. \_ I'm not the above poster, and I own no car and never will, but I've been wondering about something. What is the gas mileage of a bike, really? It took a certain amount of energy to make my bike, and a certain amount to transport it from the factory where it was assembled, to transport the various parts, etc. I try to take decent care of my bike, but it certainly has a finite lifetime in terms of total miles ridden over the lifetime of the bike. Divide energy in gas equivalent by miles, and you get a gas mileage. What is that number? Does anyone here know? lifetime of the bike. Divide energy in gas equivalent by miles, and you get a gas mileage. What is that number? Does anyone here know? Does anyone here know? -lafe \_ http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html \_ I can safely tell you that the best way to save energy is to reproduce less people, and to die earlier. If you don't exist, you don't consume, and if you don't consume, there's more energy for other people, hence less shortage. So please die. And PS your question is STUPID. \_ it's not a number; it's amortized by the number of miles you put in on your bike. It is fair to say that it is well down in the noise, in any case; a truck that used a gallon of gas delivering 20 bikes to a bike store would contribute (number of miles ridden over the lifetime of 20 bikes) per gallon. You can also talk about long-haul trucks, trains, and ships, but there the concentration of bikes is even greater. You could probably fit several hundred bikes in a shipping container. -tom \_ Not a number? You are truly a jackass. -lafe \_ Calling tom a jackass when you disagree? You are the real jackass. I mean seriously, wtf. You ask a pretty stupid question and then get all pissy when tom actually attempts to answer it. "Does anyone here know?" Ha ha! No really you're stupid. \_ thank you, anonymous coward. The point is that there is no one number for MPG for "a bike." It depends how much you ride it. Shithead. -tom \_ Apparently you didn't bother to read my post, asshole. No bike has an infinite lifetime. After a certain number of miles it's either going to become scrap metal or need spare parts to be added all of which have a finite energy cost. Given that the bike has a finite lifetime in miles, one can divide energy cost by miles and that is in fact a number. Is it going to be remotely comparable to a car? Of course not, but it seems interesting anyway. -lafe \_ Obviously it's non-zero, but it's so small as to be negligible. And the way you asked the question is meaningless; you would, at least, have to tell us how much you ride. -tom \_ That's where the "miles" come in, tom. \_ Bikes don't expire after a certain number of miles. Depending on the care taken etc. one can replace parts... and then it depends on what parts you choose. But why are you asking this about bikes and not trying to apply this "MPG" reasoning to cars, which obviously have a much much higher production, xport, maintenance, and disposal cost? \_ I'm not original poster, but yes, I would compare total energy cost of both systems. \_ Fuck off, tom, really. -lafe \_ the fact that you sign your posts does not change the fact that you are an asshole. if you're going to sign other peoples posts, at least bother to be consistent about it. -anonymous coward(lafe) \_ Yeah, but what about all the fossil fuel that goes into producing the food that you eat to power the bike? Did you consider that? And what about transportation costs to bring that food to market? I bet if you eat beef, the total energy cost of moving a bike is higher than a car. \_ Hint: The person driving the car eats too \_ Yeah, but the cyclist burns extra calories. \_ But the cyclist also gets exercise; how many "MPG" do you get in spinning class? -tom \_ Yes, but we are talking about energy efficiency here. \_ Yes, the point is that it is more efficient to get exercise while also getting somewhere than to sit on your ass in your car, and then go to spinning class. -tom \_ Riding bike to work is great if you don't wear a suit, work on multiple customer projects, have a lot of meetings, or have to transport lots of equipment Otherwise, I agree with the guy who advocates walking to look at girls :-) -John \_ Spinning class is indeed a very inefficient method of transportation. \_ How many kCal in a gallon of gas? \_ Who is this lafe guy? He's a hoot. I'm laughing my ass off on how funny this thread is. BTW, if you really want to save the environment don't even ride a bike, just walk. You'll have to walk barefoot because the manufacture and transportation of shoe products utilizes fossil fuels. So do the clothes you wear. Guess you'll just have to walk around naked and barefoot. I advocate this for all the hot cute chicks out there. \_ Plus public transit and carpool. \_ Using less energy isn't the answer. The answer is to use energy more efficiently and to use renewable srcs.  2005/5/23-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37815 Activity:moderate 5/23 How Pentagon wastes 5 billion dollars: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/super.laser.ap \_ Oh my! The horror! \_ Yeah, I hate science too. Discovering new things about fusion. Pssh. How could THAT be useful? \_ Yeah, I know. I mean, honestly, that money could be put to so many better uses -- like a solid gold monument of the 10 commandments, or giant marble statues of jesus, or maybe funding for a new religious science university and another 'intelligent design' museum somewhere. All those damned scientists spending money on their newfangled 'technology' and 'research'. They don't go to church on sundays, they don't get federal funding. church on sundays, they shouldn't get federal funding. \_ Hey, who deleted the gold plated marble Jesus? We could build that 900 foot tall Jesus that Oral Roberts is always seeing. -meyers \_ So. Are you religious right, or chicom troll? \_ I'd much rather the Pentagon spend the money building lasers for fusion than invading Iraq. \_ fusion tech would not serve republican business interests  2005/5/21-23 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37796 Activity:low 5/20 Science and Nature censoring papers that reject global warning as a man made phenomenon: http://tinyurl.com/85x6t (telegraph.co.uk) \_ I've never published in Nature, but Science rejected my paper on my mono-pole magnet until I agreed to pledge alegiance to the Unitied Nations, give up all my guns and renounce God. Now they publish all my mono-pole magnet papers without question. It's not a bad system, really. All hail the scientific priesthood and their athiestic consensus science. \_ Did you read the article? S&N have started dropping research groups from its pool of reviewers when they publish (or try to publish) research that contradicts the "accepted truth" re global warning. I don't care that they are biased as long as they come out and admit it. \_ I care if they are biased. If the research is good research then it should be published. It is up to the scientific community to accept/reject the conclusions. A journal should just publish papers, as long as the science is good. \_ You could publish it as a paid advertisement and publish the URL as a "hey, look, look at this, isn't it unique?" story on http://slashdot.org... -John \_ gee... scientist can't get his paper published in Science or Nature, then whines? Publish it somewhere else, then. You've already started whining... show us what you're whining about. Thousands of papers get rejected from both S. & N. They are the top two journals, and two most prestigious. If every scientist who wanted to publish there, got his/her wish, then the two journals would be shite. Also, getting rejected by no means indicates your article is poor, flawed, or not newsworthy. It just means that Science/Nature ed. boards didn't think your article is on-topic enough. Plenty of scientists get rejected by them, and then go and publish in other journals. \_ I've never published in Nature, but Science rejected my paper on my mono-pole magnet until I agreed to pledge alegiance to the Unitied Nations, give up all my guns and renounce God. Now they publish all my mono-pole magnet papers without question. It's not a bad system, really. All hail the scientific priesthood and their athiestic consensus science. \_ Did you read the article? S&N have started dropping research groups from its pool of reviewers when the research groups from its pool of reviewers when they publish (or try to publish) research that contradicts the "common knowledge" re global warning. I don't care that they are biased. Just let them come out and admit it. the "accepted truth" re global warning. I don't care that they are biased as long as they come out and admit it. \_ I care if they are biased. If the research is good research then it should be published. It is up to the scientific community to accept/reject the conclusions. A journal should just publish papers, as long as the science is good. \_ You could publish it as a paid advertisement and publish the URL as a "hey, look, look at this, isn't it unique?" story on http://slashdot.org... -John  2005/5/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37777 Activity:kinda low 5/20 East Antarctica ice sheet growing: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html \_ as predicted by global climate models showing global warming. The gain in ice mass reduces ocean level rise by 0.12mm per year, but ocean levels are still rising at 1.8mm per year. -tom \_ Where was this predicted? I put this here not because it "disproves" global warming--just because it was interesting. \_ "But the panel also expected that climate change would trigger an increase in snowfall over the Antarctic continent, as increased evaporation from the oceans puts more moisture into the air." "This is a phenomenal piece of research, but it is what we expected" -tom \_ So as the globe warms, Antarctica will expand? Isn't this rather contradictory? Does that mean all the stuff about poles melting is BS? \_ No, it means that the process isn't linear. As ice melts, there is more moisture in the system and thus more snow in some parts of Antarctica. The snow doesn't compensate for the amount of ice that melted; most of it goes to rising sea levels. -tom \_ There's also the whole West Antarctica problem. It'd be interesting to see how the expanding eastern portion of the continent compares with the contracting western portion. As a sidenote, I don't have a URL, but every visual portrayal I've seen of the expected global warming trend includes pockets of cold, which expand for a decade or so before collapsing and popping up elsewhere. Meanwhile the rest of the earth gets toasty. Yay PBS! \_ "Predict" means to say before. It doesn't mean, oh this proves global warming because we expected it. Where was the expectation published prior to this result? \_ http://www.csua.org/u/c5g - bbc news link \_ Way to post an irrelevant diagram! Where does that image predict thickening of any Antarctic ice? \_ right where there's a cold front off the coast of antarctica. \_ what are you getting at?  2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37775 Activity:high 5/19 Stupid prediction: Six Republicans will report to other Republican senators that they're going to compromise to prevent use of the nuclear option. Republican senators, rather than face the embarrassment of not being able to execute on the nuclear option, will compromise with Democrats in some form. Both sides claim victory; both sides will say they did not sacrifice on principles; the media will say a compromise prevented the nuclear option. \_ I don't see any incentive for Republicans to back down. Not that I am all excited about filerbuster, just that I felt that judges should be confirmed with super majority, period. \_ Why in god's name do you think that Judges should be "confirmed with super majority" ? \- the rationale is ostenisbly like peremptory challenges, which is another "negative selection" ... to get rid of "tails". --psb \_ Also, the precident is horrible: The rules have been a judge can be fillibustered, both sides have done it many times before. Changing the senate's internal rules with a simple majority vote, by effectively lying about what the vote is about is really wonky. \_ How common has judicial filibustering been? Are we talking hundreds of times in the history of the US? Just trying to figure out the order here.  2005/5/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37737 Activity:nil 5/18 You are one stubborn, narrow minded person, emarkp. I hope you have a higher IQ in your next life. I also hope you get to be born in a 3rd world country so that you'd see more to the world than your cushy, cozy little place. \_ I suspect I've spent more time in 3rd world countries than you have cmlee. -emarkp \_ Question: is IQ tied to the soul or not? \_ Shut up cmlee. -emarkp  2005/5/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37736 Activity:low 5/18 motd has gotten me interested in philosophy again. Mainly, I'm fascinated by arguments from people who have core beliefs (based on certain core principles, this is right and that is wrong) and people who have relative beliefs (you may be right from your perspective and I may be right from my perspective), and things of that nature. I'd like to know why people think certain ways, and how they debate, and how valid each perspective is. Is this philosophy? Or politics? And what's a good primer on this topic, preferably a URL? thx. \_ Read a book. \_ This is called ethics, or moral philosophy. Much of theology touches on this topic as well. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics \- Read Plato. Either that will generate an E_TOOSHORT or you will learn something. \_ Read about the uncertainty principle. Only if you can accept that the universe is non-deterministic can you even begin to discuss whether an action is right or wrong. \_ Reading Plato is never bad advice. However you might want to start with something like The History of Western Philosophy (Bertrand Russell) and then zoom in. \_ Plato is good, but a brief intro to Greek history would go far in providing context for Plato. And if Russell is too much for you, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder is a very accessible Philosophy 101 book. \- um i suppose if you want to find out what led up to Socrates "problems" with the Athenian polity or to fathom his portrayal by say F. Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols, some context would be helpful, but overall I think you need less context than for say T. Hobbes or I. Kant. Oh, and dont read the Symposium. or I. Kant. Oh, and dont read the Symposium. Probably best not to start with the Republic. much for you, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder is a very accessible Philosophy 101 book.  2005/5/17-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37719 Activity:low 5/17 Which one is more energy efficient? 1. Hybrid vehicle 2. Burn the same amount of oil at a power plant and use the electricity to power an electric-only vehicle. Thanks. \_ hybrid. electrical generator are not very efficient unless you do it on a massive scale. then, electricity can't be stored. you would be better off with some sort of hybrid. \_ I don't know, but I'll guess the Hybrid. The power plant would probably have the edge in just plain kilowats/gallon, but car batteries have a pretty big creation cost. The energy of making the batteries is pretty large. Again, I don't really know though. \_ not to mention how much power is lost in the battery charge/discharge cycle. \_ We don't usually burn oil at power plants. We use coal. \_ Yeah, but there are power plants that run on oil. \_ Like Hawaii \_ Is it coconut oil, or tanning oil? \_ Oriental massage oil. \_ But here in CA we only burn natural gas. \_ coal, gas, hydro, nukular, etc.. -- the beauty of the electrical distribution system is the generation sources are diverse as well. No reliance on one increasingly rare resource. \_ Yes, we should be using nuclear. \_ And the newest round echo-chambering begins...  2005/5/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37586 Activity:nil 5/9 Moonbats on parade! http://csua.org/u/bzs \_ Ungrateful Europeans! Let's nuke them all! -Conservative Red Neck  2005/5/5-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37548 Activity:high 05/05 How lightsabers work: http://www.howstuffworks.com/lightsaber.htm \_ Oh cool! Marshall Brain can write stupid fanboy bullshit too! \_ yep, and you can write stupid content-free motd bullshit too!  2005/5/3 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37496 Activity:nil 5/3 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693580/site/newsweek/concensus de "Pékin" : La Chine out-maneuvering politiquement etles USA diplomatically déplacés.le démuni japonais de \_ "s'est comporté parfaitement, mais ils ont fait des excusestemps several pour leur agression de temps de guerre."le Also, ma lecture de l'article est que, politiquement, la Chine a been maladroit. Saying ils sont meilleurs que Dubya n'indique pas beaucoup.  2005/5/3-4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37490 Activity:nil 5/3 America will never be energy independent. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/04/oil_independence/index.html  2005/4/27-28 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:37385 Activity:nil 04/27 Desktop fusion http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050425/full/050425-3.html  2005/4/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37368 Activity:nil 4/26 Happy Chernobyl day! http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1469597,00.html?=rss http://www.chernobyl.info - danh  2005/4/25-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37349 Activity:low 4/25 Now, THIS is some awesome BS http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956 \_ Which facts do you dispute? \_ The "fact" claimed by the Senator that you only need an altitude of 1 or 2 miles to wipe out "all the electricity" in the US for years. \_ That's a good one all right. How many nukes would it take to produce enough EMPs to largely wipe out US tech? \_ Probably hundreds. \_ the smallest claim made was that a single high-altitude nuclear detonation could bring down the electrical grid for months - "wipe out US tech" in a literal sense is more difficult, I agree \_ I thought the article said: "height of 60 to 500 kilometers above the continental U.S., one nuclear warhead could cripple the country" \_ You're correct. Conclusion: the PP is a moron. \_ Yes, but the article references a speech made by a Senator who claimed one nuke 1 or 2 miles above the earth would "bring us back to the 1880's" \_ I can't seem to find that quote. Where is it again? \_ FTA: Detonated at a height of 60 to 500 kilometers above the continental U.S., one nuclear warhead could cripple the country . knocking out electrical power and circuit boards and rendering the U.S. domestic communications impotent. \_ FWIW: Google for "tsar bomba", "fishbowl", and "starfish prime". -John  2005/4/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37316 Activity:nil 4/22 A green movement I could get behind http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3888006  2005/4/20-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37280 Activity:moderate 4/20 Yay! Consumer prices jumped 0.6 percent in March, the biggest inflation surge in five months ... The so-called core rate of inflation rose by a worrisome 0.4 percent in March, the largest jump in 2 1/2 years and double what economists had expected. ... "We are getting slower growth and higher inflation numbers. The Fed is caught," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. ... Wyss predicted that the central bank would raise rates another quarter-point when Fed officials next meet on May 3 and probably continue with quarter-point increases in future months. \_ You're thinking this is a good thing? \_ stagflation, you get what you sowed. yay! - !pp \_ I think it is good when people have to confront the consequences of their (bad) choices. \_ Our choices? I think you mean, "people have to confront the consequences of their government's bad choices." Don't know if I see anything good about it, but it's certainly nothing new - the fat cats screw up and the little guy gets the shaft. \_ We get the government we deserve. Didn't people vote the current one in office? \_ stupid people. \_ Neither Kerry nor Bush were willing to talk about the impending peak in oil production and how we will have to downscale our way of life in response to that, since that would have been political suicide. I think the difference is that once the SHTF (shit hits the fan) and it becomes obvious to a large segment of the population, Kerry would probably start some kind of program that might actually work as opposed to Bush's strategy of serially invading oil rich countries. \_ You fucking crackpot. When it comes to invading countries, Dubya is after the WMDs, not the oil. The only problem was there weren't any WMDs. -liberal \_ We won't have to "downscale" our way of life if we take oil shortage as a given and try to re-engineer our present technology. The scaling back will only have to happen if we get cought with our pants down on this issue. This will only happen if fuckheads who are owned by the Saudi royal family continue to be in control of the worlds largest energy user and greatest scientific power. \_ You need to do more research into how dependent we are on oil and natural gas and how there are no current realistic alternatives that can provide energy, especially portable energy, on the same scale. Just read this today: http://csua.org/u/bsb \_ You know, I keep hearing this, and the people I hear this from are (surprise, surprise) oil executives. Mind you, I own oil and natural gas stock because it didn't take a genius to figure this was coming. However, a country that could fly men to the moon and back within 50 years of the invention of the airplane and developed the first nuclear weapon in record time would most likely be able to convert all their existing power plants to safe nuclear (read pebble reactors) and convert all cars to use some sort of fuel cell in probably 10-15 years max. All it takes is the collective will of the people and government. This whole "we're really dependent on oil" bullshit line has just got to stop. We need to get off our asses, get rid of the oil barons, get rid of the SUV morons, and get rid of the greenpeace anti-anything-nuclear beatniks and find some real viable solutions to our long-term energy needs. Energy should be so inexpensive that it is free by now. It's ludicrous that we are still utilizing 150 year old sources of fuel in this day and age. I mean, c'mon we are STILL burning coal? \_ It certainly would be technically possible to shift the US economy to not be oil-based. But history is littered with societies which refused to change their practices in time to save themselves. The US hasn't even managed to adopt the metric system; where would we get the will to fundamentally change our way of life? -tom \_ It's not a question of fundamentally changing the lifestyle of Joe Sixpack, it's a question of changing our scientific research priorities, which atually happens pretty fast. Post 911 lots of physicists suddenly said that their research would help detect anthrax, because that was suddenly a very high priority as far as fuding agents are concerned. When you consider the relative risks from running out of energy vs. anthrax attacks, it's completely insane that anthrax detectors are killer aps and energy related research is not(as much). This is a reflection of the morons in *charge* of the government, not the morons who can't figure out how to convert cm to inches. I think it's quite concievable that president Gore could have changed this. Our civilization may end up collapsing not because of some global arrogance and shortsightedness, but rather becuase the Republicans stole a few hundred votes in Florida back in 2000. \_ we're really dependent on oil" bullshit IS NOT BULLSHIT. How the FUCK are you going to produce your pesticides with nuclear energy. How are you going to produce your fertilizers with nuclear energy. How the FUCK are you going to increase the rate of Uranium mining by the factor of 140 we'll need to replace everything with nukes or build 1,000 breeder reactors, etc. Were is all this waste going to go. Many of the alternatives that will "last forever" like Thorium, etc., take more energy to refine than you get out of them, and nukes have a very long ramp-up time. For the next 10-20 years, LNG and coal gassification are much more realistic but all of these types of things will fail eventually without a switch to renewables, a stop to eternal growth and some downscaling of the economy. \_ So pumping money into the economy didn't help that much, because it just meant house prices shot up and people bought some Toyotas and Sony televisions etc. Why can't the gov't use more targeted benefits for US business rather than just dorking with interest rates? \_ Businesses want to make money, not help the country. It seems that in the past, perhaps a majority of businesses saw that one leads to the other, that doesn't seem like the prevalant mode of current business thinking.  2005/4/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37235 Activity:kinda low 4/18 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153586,00.html Is this a sign that I should be shifting my tech stocks into energy stocks? \_ Yes, you are reading Fox News, so you should follow the herd. \_ Because there's sooo much individuality in knee-jerk slams of Fox News. \_ "Again, the Fox New audience showed the highest rate of misperceptions -- 45% -- while the NPR/PBS audience showed the lowest -- 11%." http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf Why do you keep deleting this? Can't handle the truth? Oh, I forgot. You are a Fox News listener. \_ I'm not deleting it. And I don't listen to Fox News, I watch it about 90 minutes a week. \_ That's only because the facts rarely coincide with what fox news reports. \_ Because this could destabilize energy stocks for years to come. \_ if everyone does something, then you better follow the crowd \_ Exactly the opposite. Energy stocks are overvalued now while tech stocks are finally at reasonable valuations. \_ IBM is one company  2005/4/15-16 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37207 Activity:nil 4/15 Boy, all those tax cuts for the wealthy sure are paying off in the market! \_ At least our current Prez and Veep "understand energy" so our energy prices have remained low. \_ Not to mention their foreign policy decisions have been key in helping some of America's youth learn about foreign cultures first hand (e.g. in the middle east, and who knows where else next?) \_ Here we have a good example of why humor is hard. \_ No. Please stop.  2005/4/14-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37187 Activity:moderate 4/14 Sharper Image Ionizer IS bad for you, see Consumer Reports and here: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000477039973 http://www.mediabaron.com/test/fade_test.jpg \_ What, aside from not working? \_ The fact that sharper image releases ozone has been known for years. The fact that it causes more problems for some with asthma has also been known for a while. It really is nothing new. But it looks like not every asthmatic people have problems with it. There are many asthmatic people on-line that swear by it. Sharper Image even mentions the release of ozone on their site, though they claim that it is in perfectly safe amount. Supposedly, it's the ozone that actually makes the room smell "fresher." I've read many newsgroup articles before deciding to buy it. I personally didn't like the ozone smell at first but got used to it. What I do know is that I'm not kept awake at night due to allergies anymore, and I don't get annoyed by the noise my old air filter used to make. - happy Ionic Breeze owner \_ Ozone generation is often used as a deoderizer, but it's highly destructive to live cells, and I think a carcinogen (not sure on that) \_ Do you look more and more like Michael Jackson each day? \_ So you're accepting testimonials over science? Would you like your palm read? \_ Praise the Holy Ionizer! \_ I've always under the impression that the whole purpose of those ionizers are to generate ozone in your room, rather than ozone being a side-effect. \_ Those devices exist too, but they're much worse than what Sharper Image is selling. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html \_ Thx!  2005/4/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37115 Activity:high 4/7 Dear John, please try to take this as something that may give you insights. You remind me of a hamster I used to keep in my cage. Everyday it happily runs on the hamster wheel. It is oblivious to the world outside of his cage, and it doesn't care because it is well fed and its surrounding all well taken care of. Perhaps you have never lived in poverty and have never seen a lot of crap poor and uneducated people deal with in the world, hence you develop certain [rigid] point of view. I know you're a well educated guy in a middle/upper-middle family and life seems pretty easy going and all. But if only you had experienced real econo/social related hardship in your lifetime, perhaps you'd feel differently. Perhaps you'd realize how unbalanced wealth, education, and power really are. You're like my hamster who doesn't see that human history is full of repeated power struggles and that once again, wealth and power are to this day continually concentrating in the hands of the few. Okay, perhaps you don't care. Why should you? You're well fed and happy and you're too busy running your hamster wheel. Now, go ahead, give me your best shot and flame me. -John Troll \_ Is this the same John who lived in that shithole known as CZ? That doesn't really strike me as the mark of someone who has everything handed to him. \_ It's a Dear John Letter. Buh-duh Chah! \_ With all the raving asshole libertarians on the motd, why the hell would you single out John, who appears to be pretty moderate on most issues, and to at least have a sense of humor about his raving? Are you new to the motd? A lot of people here clearly do not even believe in the existence of a social contract of any kind, and would be happy to see the poor die. As near as I can tell John is not one of those. \_ The raving asshole libertarians don't sign their names. -tom \_ Because attempts at well-reasoned responses are more threatening to the intellectually smug than raving asshole-ness. Welcome to the motd, son. \_ Sorry, I'd love to, but I have to catch a plane to Thailand. Feel free to drop me a mail if you'd like to have a nice debate. (And FYI, we weren't very well-off when I was growing up, and I do try to travel around a bit, including to less affluent places, so I guess I'm aware of what 'hand-to-mouth' means. I think I've made myself successful through effort (and a bit of luck, which I accept and appreciate.) Now please do lay out how believing in accountability and efficiency in how my money is spent and wanting people to try and work hard and excel in life when they can means I want to feed the poor to each other? -John \_ See, as opposed to raving-asshole, John is going to Thailand, to dance away the night on some full-moon-lit beach. He's just an asshole that raves..! <3, maxmcc  2005/4/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37029 Activity:nil 60%like:37023 4/1 Yay! We're running out of oil. http://csua.org/u/bjv (Financial Times) \_ cf yesterday's http://csua.org/u/bjk (Yahoo! News) \_ FUD comment. While we may or may not be running out of mail, the article talks of measures in terms of possible crisis and to alleviate economic shocks in case of price spikes (general price rises if you prefer) like we have now. -John  2005/3/31-4/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37007 Activity:low 3/31 http://csua.org/u/bjk (Yahoo! News) "... Goldman Sachs bank, the biggest trader of energy derivatives, said prices (per barrel) could ultimately surge all the way above$100." Guess I really have to think about carpooling or public transit. \_ I would much rather have seen a $4 gasoline price 2 years ago, with$2.50 of that tax going to our own gov't, than high gas prices going to pay producers and oil companies. \_ Sounds like it is time to buy commodities. Should I dump \$20K into oil? \_ That could well be speculative. \_ Why not oil stocks? \_ Less potential for profit.