Science GlobalWarming - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming:
Results 301 - 450 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/10/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/3/31-4/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:42592 Activity:moderate
3/31    "Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar"
        'Iran's existing ballistic rocket is called Shahab-3, which means
        "shooting star." It is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead."
        \_ We care why?
           \_ A hostile anti-American oil rich nation in control of long
              ranged evasive nuclear weapons sitting on top of a straight
              through which even more oil flows and we don't care.  I'm
              totally with you, bro!  Screw em!  Think locally, act locally!
              Back to caves and fire pits for everyone!  Woot!
              \_ why they are anti-American again?  hmmm... let see
                 how about not overthrowing their government for oil
                 for once?  how about stop labeling them "axis of evil?"
                 how about not shooting down their jet liner and give metal
                 to those who fired the missile?
              \_ I get that, it's just that I can read Yahoo news or a
                 newspaper, same as you.  Why does the motd care?
                 \_ Because the motd can't read the newspaper. :(
                    \_ No it can't it's not sentient.  But it's readers can.
                       Don't be dense.
              \_ Are you the OP?  Why didn't you write this in the first place
                 when you posted the link?
                 \_ No, I wasn't the OP. -ppp
        \_ I would say "elude" radar rather than "duck".
           It's probably a combination of radar-transparent materials
           and MIRV.  Ducking radar is more consistent with cruise missiles.
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
        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
        \_ Wow.  After a little looking it seems it is definitely a scam:
           (Not the company you mentioned but they're in trouble too)
2006/3/18-20 [Health, Health/Men, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42310 Activity:moderate
3/18    Level 60 in World of Warcraft:  -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:
        \_ 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"
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
                 \_ 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.
                          \_ Which might zoom up if say, all the ice on
                             Greenland decides to melt.  Everyone into the
2006/3/13-14 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42208 Activity:nil
3/13    Okay, the Z Machine produced over 290 terawatts:
        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
                    \_ 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.
2021/10/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2006/3/12-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42197 Activity:nil
3/12    Oil spill in AK:
2006/3/11-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42189 Activity:moderate
3/11    GE may have figured out a cheaper way of making H2:
        \_ 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.
              \_ 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.
                 \_ 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
                    \_ 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
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:
        \_ 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
2006/3/9-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42157 Activity:nil
3/9     World largest Bio-diesel plant to open in Indiana:
        \_ 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
2006/3/7-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42130 Activity:high
3/7 (
        "The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out
        in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with
        Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic
        \_ All options are on the table and we will be greeted as liberators.
           Oh, the country is oil rich so they can pay for their own
           reconstruction, the American taxpayer is off the hook again!
           \_ We are sort of greeted as liberators.  Most of the fighting
              is fuckhead Sunnis who can't handle only getting 20 percent
              of the political power since they are only 20 percent
              of the population, vs the dominant Shiite population
              who are viewed as infidels by the Saudis, Al-Queda,
              and that Zaqardi Jordanian fellow.  I think the only
              solution is to wall the entire area in and let them
              kill each other over which of Mohammeds cronies should
              have led Islam 2000 years ago.  What a bunch of
                \- it's a little tough to take you as a serious commentator
                   when you write about islam 2000yrs ago. --that indian fellow
              \_ to use a forest fire term, we need a "controlled burn"
                 \_ Think of it as evolution in action.  Of cource, CSUAers
                    not breeding is also evolution in action.
           \_ So it will cost only 500 billion dollars in 3 years, just
           like Iraq. Hehehehe.
                \_ It makes sense.  We can combine Iraq, Iran and the Kurds
                   into one giant OhFuckIstan.
                   \_ Why the Kurds?  They're doing pretty OK on their own.
                      It's a Sunni/Shiite thing.  Haven't the Kurds had it
                      bad enough already?
                      \_ that is because they are pratically independent from
                         Iraq right now.  I can totally see couple years
                         down the road USA will invade Kurd-controlled
                         territory along with Turkish troops.
           \_ I can't wait to see US invade Iran.  It would be a lot of
              run to watch. Too bad it won't happen, cause with Iraq,
              US is already like a girl with jeans and panties bundled
              around the ankle, butt naked and hobbled.
              fun to watch. Too bad it won't happen, cause with Iraq,
              US is already like a sissy with jeans and panties bundled
              around the ankles, butt naked and hobbled.
              \_ And you made this determination of American military
                 capacity based on your vast wealth of military knowledge
                 and deep understanding of history, logistics and military
                 psychology?  I don't think there will be an invasion, but
                 not because the US military couldn't flatten the Iranians.
                 \_ I think it has more to do with American forces being
                    stretched really thin, continuous inability to
                    suppress resistance in Iraq, and Iran being several times
                    larger in size and population (several times larger
                    than the entire population of Iraq, not the Sunnis
                    population of Iraq).  Also, an invasion would likely
                    turn the Shiites in Iraq against US.  Then there is
                    the difficulty for the US military to recruit new
                    soldiers, soldiers complaining about length of stays
                    in Iraq, a weak US economy with huge budget and trade
                    deficits, lack of international support, etc., etc.
                    Iran also doesn't have internal religious and
                    ethnic divisions like in Iraq, and hasn't been under
                    a decade of sanctions.  Note: pop of Iraq 26 million.
                    pop of Sunnis in Iraq ~5 million.  pop of Iran
                    68 million.
                    \_ Also don't forget, the Iranians have this fun tendency,
                       all the wanting to hold hands and listen to rock & roll
                       aside, to strap on bomb vests and send hordes of
                       fanatical 8 year olds to do things like clear mine
                       fields and gnaw off invaders' feet while they sleep
                       when you attack their country.  So unless you're really
                       when you attack their country, so unless you're really
                       really sure of what you're doing, don't have any, oh I
                       dunno, "other current engagements that may be requiring
                       some of your attention and military resources", and
                       have a whole buttload of allies in the area who're
                       actually willing and able to send in their own brute
                       squads (or even publicly prepared to say that they
                       support what you're doing), not to mention not having
                       any several big, mean countries that are sort of
                       counting on Iranian gas and oil and money for nuclear
                       reactor bits expressing "doubts" about what you're up
                       to, I don't really know if it's such a fantastic idea to
                       go invade them.  -John
                       \_ When your trigger happy President is also a
                          fanatic, it's not such a crazy idea to attack
                          others fanatically.
                          \_ Nobody's attacking anyone fanatically, just
                             dishonestly and incompetently.  If we can't even
                             run a war/occupation/counterinsurgency right,
                             then given all the above crap, I think starting
                             another war is knid of silly.  -John
                             another war is kind of silly.  -John
                       \_ John, you just won the longest sentence
                          of the year award.
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
              \_ 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
2006/3/6-8 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42104 Activity:nil
3/6     I went to the Home Depot appliance section today and I saw this
        really cool futuristic looking stove with completely flat
        ceramic surface which I presume makes cleaning a breeze! It
        looked so beautiful I fell in love with it immediately. I'm
        wondering how they work and if they work well.  How do they
        transfer heat from ceramic to the pots? Are these what they
        call the "eddi-current induction" cooker? How well do they
        work? Thanks.
        \_ i have one of these in my apartment. it is surprisingly
           difficult to clean... if anything spills over, it gets
           burnt and you have to scrape it off. burnt up stuff can
           really stick of ceramic. also, the flat surface makes dirt
           really obvious, so i think you end up doing more work to
           keep it looking respectable. i think it works as well as
           any electric stove i've used [nothing spectacular in terms
           of heating stuff up].
           p.s. 80 columns is teh standard.
           \_ They're very easy to clean--you usually get a metal scraper
              with it (do _not_ use abrasives of any kind.)  As counter-
              intuitive as it seems, just scrape anything off.  The poster
              below isn't entirely correct; glass-ceramic stovetops do heat
              up a lot faster than regular electric coils (I have one at
              home) and I don't get the impression they use more energy,
              although I'd be at a loss to tell you how it works.  I think
              it has to do with the heat conductivity of the cooktop.  -John
              \_ It heats up faster b/c the coil underneath can be more
                 delicate and thus more responsive (the kind you set pans off
                 have to be more rugged)
                 Look for the part about "glass-ceramic"
        \_ Basically it's just an ordinary electric coil under a glass top.
           \_ That is right. Induction cooking has not caught on in the US.
              Like the American car mentality, primitive stoves are "good
        \_ Not sure which one you were looking at, but there are two possible
           technologies you were looking at.  1) electric under the ceramic top-
           has the same disadvantages as normal electric, no instant heat, more
           costly energy 2) magnetic induction- only works with certain pan
           materials (i.e. iron).  There are numerous others gotchas, but as cool
           as flat-tops look, I think gastops are still the best of existing
           technologies (weird in the year 2006).
           technologies you were looking at.  1) electric under the ceramic
           top- has the same disadvantages as normal electric, no instant heat,
           more costly energy 2) magnetic induction- only works with certain
           pan materials (i.e. iron).  There are numerous others gotchas, but
           as cool as flat-tops look, I think gastops are still the best of
           existing technologies (weird in the year 2006).
        \_ If you saw it at Home Depot, or in the United States for that matter
           then 99% of the time it is NOT an induction stove. Induction stoves
           are very popular in Asia like Japan and have the electric->heat
           efficiency of 80-90% (depending on manufacturer and the type of
           pot you use). They are completely cool to touch and only heat up
           the pot directly to reach that efficiency. What this means is
           that you can't use aluminum or glass on top to heat things up.
           You need to use special pots with thick irons to reach high
           elec->heat efficiency. If you go to Marukai or high end Asian
           markets (not Ranch 99) in JapanTown, you'll find special pots that
           say in kanji, "Thick Bottom" and bold letters like CH and IH meaning
           those pots are specially designed for Induction Heating. The bottom
           is usually at least 5mm with thick iron, while aluminum or something
           else wrap around it. I have never seen induction stoves or induction
           pots sold in the US. The exception would be those high-end web sites
           that tailor to professional chefs. I guess when energy is so cheap
           and plentiful, who cares about stove efficiency?
           \_ 5 cm thick?! You think this is an efficient way to cook?  Do you
              have any idea how much energy it takes to dig up that much iron,
              refine it, make your 5cm thick pots and pans from it, transport
              to the stores for you to buy, etc?  To save how much energy on
              the cooking side of the equation? Not to mention the damage
              caused to the environment with all the mining operations required
              to dig up the iron in the first place.  And then I'd have what?
              An extra 5 lbs? 10 lbs? more? of pan to lug around to clean,
              move, etc.  At least it would be too heavy to make a decent
              \_ my bad I mean 5mm. Wow someone in the US understands the
                 metric system. I'm impressed. -op
                 \_ wow, ok, nevermind then.  I had this image of this giant
                    unmovable object that needed to be cleaned on the spot
                    because it would be impossible to move to a sink or put
                    in any sort of dish washer.  My uncle had an old style
                    iron pan I could barely move (I was a kid) which wasn't
                    anything like 5cm.  Probably about the 5mm you meant but
                    still very heavy.
           \_ Where can I get more info on this inductive heating
              technology? I saw a Zojirushi rice cooker with inductive
              heating technology, but wasn't sure what it is. How safe
              is it? You said iron, is it iron coated with Teflon?
              \_ Why does it have to be coated with teflon?
                 \_ Rice cookers pots are usually non-stick. What else
                    would it be if not teflon?
                    \_ I don't know what kind of fancy cooker you've got,
                       but the ones I've seen are aluminum.
                 If you have a lot of cash buy this one:
                 Don't get those American/China-made knockoffs that are less
                 than 2000W
2006/3/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42084 Activity:nil
2/16    Consequences for violating Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
        more economic/nuclear collaboration with USA
        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
        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
                    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.
        \_ 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
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.  </commonsense>
        \_ Break them open with a hammer and smoke meth with them. </nonsense>
        \_ do this:
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
        "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
        "... 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.
2006/2/3-5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41692 Activity:moderate
2/3 (
        IAEA ready to vote to send Iran to Security Council, but U.S. lone
        holdout on new Egypt-introduced / UK-modified language which says
        Middle East should eventually be WMD-free (meaning Iran may be able
        to complain about "why does Israel get to have nukes").
        Western official:  "This resolution is about Iran"
        European official:  "It's five against one"
        Current text:  "a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would
        contribute to the goal of a Middle East free of all WMDs, and their
        means of delivery."
        My prediction:  The U.S. will cave, and perhaps throw some bullshit
        language in there that everyone knows won't mean anything other than
        being a face-saving gesture.
        \_ Maybe... maybe not.  We've taken a hard line on Iran and I don't
           think we're going to trade away Israel's existence in exchange for
           sending Iran to the UNSC, a toothless organization which lacks will
           or even sufficient self interest to care.
           \_ The thing is, UK's language != "trade away Israel's existence".
              I predict the U.S. will realize that they're actually not giving
              much away using this language.
              Also, the Sec Council, as with all neutral and states which are
              traditionally opposed to the U.S., has its uses.  George H.W.
              Bush understood this, and was able to forge a truly international
              coalition (including Arab states) to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in
              Gulf War I, while saving enormous amounts of U.S. dollars and
              preserving the lives of our soldiers.
                \_ Yeah but he was a pussy
           \_ I probably should not respond to such a blatant troll, but how
              does agreeing to a nuclear free Middle East equate to agreeing
              to trade away Israel's existence?
              \_ It isn't a troll.  Let's see, tiny country of a few million
                 surrounded by hostile enemies numbering in the hundreds of
                 millions who have already launched several wars with the
                 intent of wiping them off the face of the map and "driving
                 them into the sea".  Several/most of those countries are
                 still officially in a state of war with Israel.  You think
                 something other than the threat of being nuked has kept
                 them at bay?  Either you're woefully ignorant or you're the
                 one trolling here.
                 \_ Well, there is the part where they keep losing...
                    \_ Israel only needs to lose once and it's over forever.
                       They barely made it the first time with heavy losses
                       and again later they only won due to sheer incompetence
                       on the part of the attackers.  Tell me again how a
                       nuke free Israel can survive when (not if) they get
                       attacked again?  Seriously, all of this is very public
                       \_ there's this thing called the United States.
                       knowledge.  The details are historic facts of these wars
                       are agreed upon by all sides and out sider observers.
                       Blowing up kids in discos and pizza parlors is what
                       the enemy does when a land invasion would result in
                       getting nuked.  It isn't due to the heart warming and
                       cheery good nature of their Arab neighbors that they
                       haven't been attacked since 73 which corresponds very
                       closely with the time Israel is assumed to have
                       acquired the nuke.  I'm sure it's just a coinkydink....
                       \_ there's this thing called the United States.
                          \_ So what?  It is sheer insanity for one country to
                             make its very existence dependant on the direct
                             military action of another country thousands of
                             miles away.  At best the little country becomes
                             a vassal/colony state, at worst they get crushed
                             and genocided anyway while their Lords debate over
                             sending American Boys(tm) to fight someone else's
                             war.  I can't believe I'm still bothering with
                             this.  Go read some very basic history of the
                             world.  I'm done being trolled.
                             \_ Israel has traditionally been a vassal colony
                                of more powerful nations throughout its
                                history. In fact, the period referred to
                                within the Bible when Israel was an independent
                                nation lasted for a relatively short period
                                of time (and obvious dissension caused the
                                early state to rift in two, resulting in
                                easy pickings for the neighboring mideast
                                countries). Anyone with a basic knowledge
                                of world history would've known that.
                                \_ "We did a stupid thing thousands of years
                                   ago, so let's repeat it today!"  What does
                                   all of what you're saying about history
                                   have anything to do with Israel today?  I
                                   would take it as a lesson to *learn* from
                                   the past, not attempt to mirror the horrors
                                   of it.  I don't see what point you're
                                   trying to make that regarding Israel today.
                                   You get an "A+" for Ancient History Of The
                                   Middle East if that makes you feel any
                                   better.  An "F" for being on topic.
2006/2/2-4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast] UID:41670 Activity:nil
2/2     For those interested in the "about 10% [of oil imports are
        from the Middle East]" vs. the link, according to this other link from the the 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.
        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."
2006/2/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41642 Activity:nil
        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."
        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
       , 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. 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
                 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
2006/1/28-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41587 Activity:nil
2006/1/28-29 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41578 Activity:high
        "The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has
        tried to stop him from speaking out ... was particularly incensed that
        the directives ... had come through informal telephone conversations
        ... leaving no significant trails of documents. ... relayed the
        warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such
        statements continued ... 'The inference was that Hansen was disloyal.'
        ... many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years
        ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration
        officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is
        present or on the phone."
        "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world
        will drift toward tragedy." -GW Bush (Sep 2, 2004)
        \_ oooh spoooookeeeey.... "informal telephone conversations" ....
           ... "no signnificant trails of documents" ....  "relayed the
           warning .... would be 'dire consequences'" .... "inference was
           that ... was disloyal" .... "and then only if a [agent representing
           the administration] is present" .......
           So has the NYT sunk to new journalistic lows or was it always this
           bad?  Wasn't there once a time when reporters actually went out
           and *investigated* allegations instead of writing single sourced
           propaganda like this?  I guess doing actual fact checking is
           *work*.  Maybe this is going on, maybe it isn't but we don't know
           from sensationalist junk like this.  Might as well read the Daily
           Cal.  Same quality and it's free.
           \_ What you are saying is completely false.
              \_ Uhm, yeah, you have totally convinced me with that well
                 supported statement.  If you have nothing to say, which
                 you don't, say nothing.  In the mean time, I'm going to go
                 find a Daily Cal so I can read something well researched
                 instead of the crap the NYT is spewing out.
                 \_ Most of your "points" are complete hokum.
                    \_ Most of your "points" are complete hokum.
                    \_ If you actually had a point or something to say, you
                       would have said so by now.  You're still hovering
                       around the "i no u r but wut am i?!" level.  The
                       Daily Cal quite most excellent even though it was
                       last week's Tuesday edition.  Very timely!  I look
                       forward to reading tomorrow's on Friday.
              \_ What you are saying is completely false.
        \_ Holy time travel, Batman.  Here's a Wapo story from 1/2005 about it.
           Does he like pop up once a year to talk about how he's been
           pressured not to talk?  Any bets on his story on 1/2007?
           \_ Anyone who ranks lower would be hesitant to come out
              for fear of losing their livelihood.
              \_ Absolutely.  Come January next year, I'm sure we'll once
                 again hear about how he was pressured to keep silent.
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
        \_ 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."'
           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
        \_ 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."'
           BTW, testes 8.5% of body weight are some pretty big and dense balls.
2006/1/23-25 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41488 Activity:high
1/23    In the old days there were convection heaters. There were
        oil heaters, horizontal electric heaters, and heat dishes. While
        they worked, they created heat spots and didn't distribute heat
        evenly. Later someone had a brilliant idea of putting a fan in
        the heater, and today most of the electric heaters come with
        at least one fan-- usually something that blows a lot of dust
        into the air, and hums loudly at night. Well, fuck the dust
        and the noise. I have gone back to the good 'ol days. I just bought
        a regular Holmes aluminum convection heater. It is nearly silent
        and doesn't disturb me at night. Fuck modern technology. Go old
        convection heaters.                     -I really hate new things
        \_ I actually prefer the noise at night. I can't sleep in silence.
        \_ Costco carries heat dishes, if you prefer heat spots and uneven
           heating.  I bought one.
        \_ Yeah, I had one at Cal, worked awesome, mainly because of the
           surface area and the principle of convection.  Much better than
           other heaters I've used.  Saved a lot on heating bills too!
        \_ I did a google search on "convection heaters", and this chart
           says the fan units heat your room much faster (but are noisier)
           \- I used to work on numerical and analytic models of heat
              transfer to analyze things like circuit board layouts.
              Obviously convection is a huge boost over mere radiation
              but it turns out you also want a turbulent flow rather than
              laminar for greater heat capacity/xfer, although in a wasteful
              system like this, those details dont matter too much. Berkeley
              Math/Mech Eng is a big place for fluid dynamics, tribology etc.
              I think HILFINGR has some affilation with the people who do
              some of the applied work here [e.g. COLLELA and MARCUS].
              some of the applied work here [e.g. COLELLA and MARCUS].
        \_ Why not get an air filter?  Works great for dust.  -John
           \_ Please recommend a make and model. -- ulysses
           \_ I don't have a specific recommendation, but a friend in the
              HVAC business told me to buy filters either really cheap
              or really expensive.  Don't buy anything in the middle.  He
              said those tends to starve your system of air.  Oh I am
              talking about built-in home system, not the portable stuff.
              \_ I had a big cylindrical one in colleage--I don't remember
                 the model, but it worked great.  About 30" high and 20" in
                 diameter, with a replaceable filter that wrapped around the
                 inside.  Worked a charm in a very dusty room.  -John
        \_ wear more. Thermal layers do wonders. Use less energy, save the earth
           \_ Seconded.
2006/1/19-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41434 Activity:kinda low
        The initial CAFE fuel standards were set by Carter, then
        lowered later by Reagan.
        \_ I can't back this claim up, but I think fuel efficiency would
           be helped tremendously by ending welfare for the U.S. auto
           manufacturers.  The public wants higher mileage.  As long as the
           executives at U.S. auto manufacturers continue to live on the
           public dole, they have no motivation to give a shit about what
           the public wants, and shareholders and union workers have no
           motivation to revolt against the cockroaches who run their
           companies.  I find it both sickening and amusing that so many
           so-called conservative republicans support welfare for auto
        \_ Oops, even the 1978 standards weren't set by Carter but by
           "Conress itself set the standards for passenger cars, which rose
            from 18 miles per gallon in automobile model year (MY) 1978 to
            27.5 mpg in MY 1985.  As authorized by the act, the Department of
            Transportation (DOT) set standards for light trucks for model
            years 1979 through [munged by pdf->html, year lost, sorry].  The
            standards are current 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 20.7 mpg
            for light trucks".  Light trucks includes SUVs, etc, as we know.
            Report issued in 2001.
        \_ Garbage.  I dismissed this link since it provides no facts or
           details.  I restored the discussion below about this which has
           links with actual facts.  Good effort though.  CAFE predates
              "The rules for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE
              standards, were first set for automobiles during the Carter
              years." I am waiting for your mea culpa.
              "As the administration of President Jimmy Carter was
               winding down, Claybrook advanced a NHTSA notice that
               called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995."
              \_ Mea this:
                 The Energy Policy Conservation Act, [EPCA] was enacted into
                 law by Congress in 1975, and established Corporate Average
                 Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards for passenger cars and light
                 trucks. The Act was passed in response to the 1973-74 Arab
                 oil embargo. The stated near-term goal was to double new car
                 fuel economy by model year 1985.
                    "Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more
                     fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon
                     over the following decade - a requirement passed under
                     Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter."
                     You are wrong, but too stupid to realize it.
                     \_ So the Ford admin created it and passed it but Carter
                        should get credit for it and you think I'm the dumb
                        one here.  Okey dokey!  Go Jimmy!  Woot!  You *can*
                        credit him with saying "nucular" all the time.  That's
                        good for 15 minutes.
                        good for 15 minutes.  Your own quote backs what I'm
                        saying: CAFE wasn't Carter's.
                        \_ The law was passed before Carter, but Carter set
                           the initial stringent standards, which were then
                           raised during his adminstration. If we had followed
                           those standards, we would use 25-35% less oil today.
                           Reagan lowered those standards. If you bothered to
                           actually read up on the topic, you would see that
                           I am correct.
                           \_ Correct about what exactly?  The initial
                              standards were pathetic.  They were later
                              ping ponged around and today it's 27.5 for
                              cars and 20.5 for light trucks including most
                              SUVs.  I'd like to see a link for that 25%
                              number you keep bandying about.  And yeah, I've
                              only got about a dozen links and pdfs open for
                              this idiotic topic, most of them .gov sites.
                              My research skills suck.  If only I could have
                              found some quality links from a Kennedy clansman.
                              \_ Hey, are you dissing
                              \_ If by ping ponging, you mean raised by Carter
                                 and then lowered by Reagan, you are correct.
                                 I think it was raised by 1 MPG by Bush I.
                                 Sierra club guy says we could have saved
                                 3 to 4 M BBL/day, which is 15-20%, but I
                                 think it would be higher if we had the 48 MPG
                                 fleet average proposed by Carter and no SUV
                                 exemption, instead of our current 23 MPG.
                                 2/3 our oil is spent on transportation,
                                 double fuel economy would mean that we would
                                 use half as much fuel on transportation,
                                 hence 25%. I need to get back to work, but
                                 you can be sure that I have researched this
                                 \_ Researched this at more high quality sites
                                    like  Do you have
                                    quotes from <DEAD><DEAD> too?
                                    \_ no, that is what google pulled up
                                       in a hurry. I have spent a lot longer
                                       researching this that you and you have
                                       not really bothered to actually bothered
                                       to. Read up on it and we can talk some
                                       more later. You just don't know what
                                       you are talking about. The vast
                                       majority of our oil today is burned
                                       in cars and SUVs.
                                       \_ And did you learn that from
                                          <DEAD><DEAD>?  How much of your
                                          heavy research did it take to figure
                                          out it takes more energy to move big,
                                          heavy objects?
                                       \_ The "holier than thou" thing is a
                                          really distasteful way to walk away.
                                          If you don't have the time and can't
                                          prove what you're saying when the
                                          links start flying, just step out
                                          and try again when you're prepared.
                                          "I'm smarter than you and know more
                                          than you but I'm too busy to prove
                                          it with links worth clicking on"
                                          isn't flying.  Carter: bad President.
                                          And frankly even if CAFE was his idea
                                          and he chose extremely high standards
                                          and demonstrated the leadership
                                          required to make those standards
                                          stick, he would still have sucked
                                          as President, but at least then he'd
                                          have *one* positive thing to lay
                                          claim to for his 4 years.
                                 \_ Then you can save me the trouble and find
                                    something that says Carter wanted 48 and
                                    the current is 23.  Sierra Club?  They
                                    say a lot of things but aren't exactly an
                                    unbiased source.  How about a .gov url
                                    instead of some axe grinders?
                                    \_ Sorry have to work. Later.
              \_ Or how about this?
                 "In 1975, Congress mandated separate Corporate Average Fuel
                 Economy (CAFE)... [These] requirements where passed with
                 bipartisan support and signed into law by President Gerald
                 Ford."  A search for Carter in that pdf yields nothing.
        \_ Carter invented the internet..
           \_ Pshaw!  We all know Gore did that.
              \_ No, Al Gore invented the algorithm. It even bares his
                 name, AlGore-ithm.
                 \_ Carter invented the carts.  He named his family after his
                    \_ I somehow doubt the current president will ever claim
                       to have invented the bush, however.
           \_ Actually, Nixon did.  The first IMPs were deployed in 1969.
              So what exactly did Carter do that was useful and noteworthy?
2006/1/3-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41221 Activity:low
1/3     No, really?  Iran developing Nuclear Weapons and ballistic
        \_ 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
        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
              \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                 \_ George Will wrote an editorial saying, "We must drill or
                    the communists will win!"?  Unlikely.
                    \_ - 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
           [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?
        \_ 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.
           \_ 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:
           \_ 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.
                 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
2005/12/16-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41046 Activity:kinda low
12/16   Pacific islanders move to escape global warming
           \_ 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:
        \_ "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
              \_ 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
        "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:
        "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 (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." (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." (, 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
        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+
                 \_ 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.
2005/11/30-12/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40781 Activity:kinda low
11/30   "Researchers Convert Chicken Fat to 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
              \_ 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
           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.
                      \_ 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)
                    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 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.
           \_ 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
           <company>'s bottom line by significantly reducing trash removal
           our company's bottom line by significantly reducing trash removal
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.
              \_ 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 &
                           \_ 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%
                           \_ Or glass-wall highrise buildings, for that
        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
        \_ 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 (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 of $2,000."
        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
        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
        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?
        \_ 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: (Same site)
2005/11/14-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40579 Activity:nil
11/14   The hunt for the worst sound in the world.
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:
        And some of their supporters beat up a camera crew outside the
c       courthouse:
        \_ 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
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 can't keep flying forever!  Thanks to
              Intelligent Falling.
2005/11/7-8 [Science, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:40469 Activity:nil
11/5    LED Lightbulbs:
        \_ Beautiful! Can't wait for these to hit the market!
           \_ Apparently, they are (not the fancy ones)
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!
        "Leonard Nimoy for his amazing voiceover work reading a short
        quotation as each new technology is discovered"
2005/10/22-24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/RealEstate] UID:40224 Activity:nil
        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':
        \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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":
                          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"
        "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?
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                                   \_ 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
        \_ 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
        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"
        \_ 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? --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
                 \- 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
              \_ 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.
2005/9/22-23 [Science/Disaster, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39815 Activity:moderate
9/22    Question for motd:
        A day ago I think there was a link explaining the downsides of
        using a nuclear bomb to try to disperse forming hurricanes/tropical
        storms.  I have two questions, does a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb
        have the same fallout effects as a nuclear bomb, and two, if not,
        wouldn't it be a great solution to the problem?  Just go nuke these
        things once they achive hurrican status (because there are too many
        wussy tropical storms).  I'm pretty sure the cost of the bomb would
        be offset by the money saved in devastation (62+ billion for New
        Orleans anyone?).  -mrauser
        \_ Pres. Bush has a dream .. where he can just put his finger
           on the eye of the hurricane and keep it from spinning..
           then it stops.. he wonders if it'll work
        \_ What John and people below have said is essentially correct --
           it's the fireball from the detonation that irradiates stuff.  If
           the fireball is close enough to the ground, then the blast radius
           is likely reduced, but the effects from radioactive fallout are
           greatly enhanced.  An airburst is much cleaner (where the fireball
           doesn't reach the ground) but has greatly enhanced blast effects.
           While air-burst detonating a nuke (hot or cold) in a hurricane
           will not produce as much fallout, any dust or other debris will
           will not produce much fallout, any dust or other debris will
           be irradiated; though compared to a ground-detonated nuke, it's
           still largely inconsequential.
        \_ You do realise that a fusion bomb NEEDS a fission bomb to
           get it going, don't you?
        \_ Someone posted this link that explains why it wouldn't work:
        \_ Aside from the link above, what hubris.  The power and energy
           involved in a hurricane dwarfs any single nuke, and possibly
           the entire US nuke arsenal.  We humans are small.  Even our
           nukes are small.
           \_  Trust me when I say that the entire US nuclear arsenal can
               do a lot more damage than a hurricane. Can you imagine if
               8,000 warheads had hit New Orleans?
                \_ 8,000 warheads detonated in the gulf of Mexico wouldn't
                   have flooded New Orleans
                   \_ One warhead on a levee would have.
                      \_ One fertilizer bomb on a levee would have too.
                   \_ I am not sure I agree with this.
           \_  The above link was what I was referring to.  I just
               wasn't sure if fusion bombs had quite the same fallout effects.
               But as I said, we would hit these things when they are tropical
               storms, before they are fully developed.  -mrauser
               \_ The biggest affect to fallout is how close to the ground the
                  bomb detonates, not the size of the bomb.
                  \_ True, fallout usually refers to radioactive dirt that
                     was thrown into the atmosphere.  However, the other
                     kind of fallout is radioactive elements left over from
                     the fission process.  A well made "fusion" bomb will
                     produce much less of this kind of fallout than a
                     fission only bomb because the fission core has more
                     time to complete it's reaction.
                     \_ Not really.  I'd think the contribution of the
                        fissile/fusion materials are almost irrelevant compared
                        to the tons of debris that the fireball would loft up
                        into the air for a ground blast.  I think the bigger
                        issue is the radiation produced by the blast.  Fission
                        generates more of the 'bad particles' that irradiate
                        stuff -- making for much much more lethally radioactive
                        fallout in a ground burst.  It's not the fissile
                        material itself, but the stuff it contaminates while
        \_ Didn't you see that episode of Dungeons & Dragons where
           the DM takes a day off and gives his powers to the paladin?
           \_ Best cartoon series ever.  Bring it back, please!!
        \_ Fusion nukes don't create fallout per se.  It's the fission bomb
           used to set off the fusion part of a fusion bomb that causes
           fallout.  -John
        \_ Why do you hate hurricanes?
           \_ I bet BUD DAY hates hurricanes passionately.
           \_ Because the hurricane terrorizes America. It impedes our
              freedom and liberty, and limits our rights to cheap oil from
              the Gulf. Therefore, we need to launch preemptive attacks
              on the hurricane BEFORE it hits the American soil. We
              will be resolute until our mission is accomplished.
              To the hurricane, I say bring it on, and God Bless.
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:
2005/9/19-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39747 Activity:low
9/19    Holy crap, NK give up nukes: (ruters)
        \_ Well, they're just lying about it again because they're desperate.
        \_ What makes you think NK's commitment to Bush is any more meaningful
           than their commitment to Clinton?
           \_ So, I don't really.  However, in this case pretty much all
              the concerned countries are involved, so there should be less
              bait-and-switch and divide-and-conquer going on.
              \_ see post below about x from Japan, y from China, etc.
        \_ LA Times is a bit more complete:
           Also, it's true that one of the biggest problems is NK habit of
           strongly denying things that we have verified evidence of.  For
           example, before the 1994 treaty it was shown that NK had already
           unloaded fuel rods from Yongbyon.  NK denied and there was a big
           hubub.  Now they're denying that they have a program
           based on enriched uranium sheesh.
              \- the second plank of the non-proliferation treaty is
                 the recogized nuke power are supposed to move toward
                 nuke disarmament ... so there is bogosity on all sides.
                 BTW, i dont actually think it makes any sense to move
                 toward zero nukes. if you have 1000 nukes and the enemy
                 has 1000, it doesnt really matter if they "cheat" and
                 build 100 more. if you go down to 10 or zero and somebody
                 does cheat, then the relative gains make a big diff.
                 you may wish to see adelphi paper #???: the spread of
                 nuclear weapons: more may be better, by K. Waltz. --psb
                 \_ I think the issue is that we don't really punish
                    those who managed to get the nukes, Pakistein, especially.
                    if anything, we should of invaded Pakistein for
                                                      \- is that the jewish
                                                         province of pakistan?
                    1. having nuke, and 2. give nuke technology to
                    'axis of evils'  May be we should of impose
                    ecnomic sanctions against India.  We might save
                    some American jobs at the same time.
                        \_ Pakistan doesn't have oil, does it?
        \_ didn't we see this before under Bubba?
           Light-water reactors funded by Japan and S Korea, oil from China,
           a statement of non-aggression from the U.S. -- in exchange for
           no-nukes until the UN inspectors get kicked out again?
           Wasn't Dubya all about no concessions, no negotiations?  Oh yeah,
           that's what got the UN inspectors kicked out in the first place!
           \_ No he wasn't.  Go back and read the back articles.
              \_ Revisionist historians is what I call them!
              \_ Revisionist historian is what I call you!
                 Seriously, though, there are some differences:  For one,
                 the U.S. is not promising a light water reactor.
                 Dubya is not promising a light water reactor.
                 \_ I'm not sure I understand what you've posted.  Bush is
                    no concessions because he didn't give them light water
                    \_ Bottom line:  Dubya was about no negotiations, but he
                       negotiated.  Theoretically freepers should be calling
                       Dubya an appeaser now -- but as long as their guy does
                       it, they give him the benefit of the doubt.
                       "Dubya appeases Kim Jong-il with oil and aid!"
                       Bottom line 2:  I'm glad Dubya negotiated.
                       \_ From "How To Negotiate the Best Deal on a Car"
                          ( "Learn to
                          keep a 'poker face' and be prepared to walk away
                          one or more times until the seller agrees to a
                          reasonable price."
        \_ In the matter of NK, the biggest problem is that US want to have
           the regime toppled.  The other countries in the region want
           to have NK regime evolve.  And the shortie in NK wants to
           survive.  To survive, it needs to evolve, but at the same time
           if it doesn't have nukes, US may try to topple it.
           \_ Perhaps the China elite convinced Kim Jong-il that he could have
              his dictatorship and capitalism at the same time.
              \_ they tried.  The problem is that N.Korea does not have the
                 market size to lure investers.
           \_ While it's true that the US would probably be fine with NK
              crumbling, we haven't been working with that assumption.
              That was the assumption Clinton went in with, Bush has
              decided that NK is probably gonna be around for a while.
              This is mostly because there is not any "safe" way for us to
              invade them.
              \_ China nor the other Korea want to see N.Korea collapse for
                 the same reason why you don't want to see Mexico's economy
                 went tank.  After all, it's their backyard and it's China
                 and S.Korea have to put up with refugees and nuclear
                 fall outs.
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:
2005/9/15-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39700 Activity:moderate
9/15    The End Of The Binge
        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
2005/9/14-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39667 Activity:nil
        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.
2005/9/8-10 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39580 Activity:nil
9/8     Power Generating Backpacks for you hippy pot smoking tree huggers:
2005/9/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39521 Activity:nil
        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  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:
           \_ 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
        \_ Hamster power!
2005/9/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39412 Activity:nil
9/1     Four dollars a gallon and rising :
        (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.
        \_ Are you a terrorist?
           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.
           \_ 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?
        \_ 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?
        \_ $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!
        <DEAD><DEAD>  -John
        \_ I think you mean
                Also known as pastafarians.
           \_ Unfortunately, there are way more than 17 pirates in the world
           \_ 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:
           \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
        \. 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
                  \_ 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
                              \_ 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,
                      \_ 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.
           I guess maybe he _is_ the President.
           \_ Red herring for the win!
        \_ The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
           \_  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:
        \_ Does it output more energy than it takes to grow and transport the
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
                 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
                 \_ 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:
                  \_ 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! (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
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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:
                             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
                             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)
                   (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
                   \_ 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
                   (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
                                       \_ 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
                                                      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
                                                  \_ 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
                                             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
                                    \_ 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
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
                                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:
         \_ "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:
  (, 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?
2005/8/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39044 Activity:nil
8/8     Iran resumes fuel cycle work
2005/8/5-7 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39021 Activity:nil
        How long does radiation last? Are babies born there weird? Do
        they have 3 eyes or 3 legs?
2005/8/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance] UID:39018 Activity:nil
        "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
        "... 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
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
        \_ 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.,2782,68282,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6

 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
        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:
        \_ 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.
2005/7/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:38679 Activity:nil
7/18    More "cold" fusion results:
        \_ 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:
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:
        \_ 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
           - 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
                 \_ 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.
                    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
2005/7/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming, Health/Women] UID:38430 Activity:low
7/5     punky brewster way pregnant
        \_ Cute little Punky Brewster... the good 'ol 80s when I grew up.
           2 decades later, she got fat, ugly, and too busy endulging
           herself with latte fratte & capuccino that she doesn't care about
           anything else except with things concerning herself. In a way,
           that is like many of us, a typical apathetic and lazy Gen-X that
           our media accurately stereotype us to be. Gen-X is one the most
           pathetic generation out there. You heard me right. Whereas our
           parents were in-tune with the environment, were sensitive to
           social inequalities, and were filled with a sense of honor to
           change the world for a better place, the Gen-X were too busy
           buying the latest Yuppie toys, drinking Starbucks and obsessed
           with making money without doing hard honest work to earn it.
           Shame on Gen-X. It's TIME FOR INTROSPECTION.
           \_ You need to take off those rose colored glasses about the Baby
              Boomers and stop listening to what your parents told you about the
              \_ Our parents protested against war, bombed institutions,
                 dropped out of school, and did drugs. They made big news and
                 caused our politicians to think twice. Maybe the effects
                 were not always what they intended, but the fact of the
                 matter was that they had guts and passion. Fast forward to
                 us Gen-X. We were too busy with ourselves and our Atari,
                 Colleco, Nintendo, and Sega. We don't give a damn about
                 anything but ourselves. They say that there's always a
                 bit of truth in stereotypes, and the media is right on
                 P.S. The fact that there are many GenX on motd and only 1
                 addressed or came to their defense says a lot about the
                 so called apathetic GenX.
                 \_ Just out of curiousity, did YOUR parents do those
                    things?  Also, most of that crap was in response to
                    the draft.  You see a draft these days?  Also, most
                    hippies became yuppies.  Big protest.
           \_ I read on this liberal blog the other day that women
              often gain weight during pregnancy.
           \_ Go see the movie, Wallstreet.  That is your parents' generation.
              Thankfully, I was born after the Boomers but before their kids,
              the so-called Gen-X kids so whatever you and your horrible
              parents do to the world is not my fault.  There aren't enough
              of us "in-betweeners" to even get a catchy media created label.
              \_ Just curious, what year where you born? I was born in 1965
                 and I consider myself part of the first Gen-Xers.
                 \_ Go find a chart showing how many new borns there were for
                    each year from 1945 to now.  1965 is the very tail end of
                    the baby boomers.  Between 1966 and about 1972 or so births
                    were way down (comparitively), then they shot up again as
                    the post-WWII boomers started having kids.  From ~67 to
                    maybe 71 or 72 you're neither boomer nor "gen-x".
                 \_ My impression is:
                    1950: Boomers
                    1960: In-Betweener
                    1970: Gen-X (video game generation)
                    1980: Gen-Y
                    Correct me if I'm wrong
                    \_ I thought: Gen-75, Gen-Y: '80+, also the kids of the
                       boomers are Gen-Y, not Gen-X. I was born in '76,
                       and consider myself young for Gen-X, but too old for
                    \_ You are wrong .. j/k.
                       I think t is:
                       boomers: 45-65
                       Gen-X: 65-80
                       Gex-Y: 80+
                       I qualify as a Gen-Xer mostly because I went to college
                       late, so all my friends are born in 1970 or so, but I
                       really think 1965 is right on the cusp.
2005/6/29-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38355 Activity:nil
6/30    Good, it's about freakin' time.  (ITER site decided: France)
        \_ 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.
        Tell that to the brazilians:
        \_ Tell that to the brazilians:
           \_ 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 != --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:
        \- 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)
        \_ 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:
        \_ Refuted:
           (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." (
        \_ 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
                \_ "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
        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.
2005/6/3-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37960 Activity:nil
6/2     The fourth world, I like that idea:
2005/6/2-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37945 Activity:nil
6/2     The Governator's Solar Roof Plan passes:
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
2005/5/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37844 Activity:high
5/26    Hybrid Gas Savings Calculator:
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
                 \_ 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.
                    \_  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
                                         \_ 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.
                                                  \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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: (
           \_ 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 -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 -John
2005/5/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37777 Activity:kinda low
5/20    East Antarctica ice sheet growing:
        \_ 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?
                    \_  - 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:
           \- 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.
        \_ 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!
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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 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.
2005/4/27-28 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:37385 Activity:nil
04/27   Desktop fusion
2005/4/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37368 Activity:nil
4/26    Happy Chernobyl day!,15569,1469597,00.html?=rss - danh
2005/4/25-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37349 Activity:low
4/25    Now, THIS is some awesome BS
        \_ 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
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:
                             \_ 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
           \_ 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
        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
              \_ "Again, the Fox New audience showed the highest rate of
                  misperceptions -- 45% -- while the NPR/PBS audience showed
                  the lowest -- 11%."
                  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
        \_ 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. <snort> 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:
        \_ 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.
                 \_ 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.  (Financial Times)
        \_ cf yesterday's (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 (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.
2005/3/20-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:36782 Activity:very high
3/20    Is recycling household materials like glass and paper a good idea
        or is it a waste of time and energy?
        \_ I believe for glass it is mainly to keep it out of the landfills.
           I don't think it takes that much less energy to remelt glass than
           it does to create it originally.  Of course, refilling definitely
           saves tons of energy.  As for paper, recycling that does make a
           difference, and the more homogenous the paper is (newsprint for
           example) to more the benefit is <-- non-scientific info, just
           from reading a few articles here and there on recycling.
           \- industrial recycling [like what ford does or some of what has
              been mandated in germany] make sense often. these civic programs
              are feel good vanity projects.
              \_ Except aluminum.  Recycling aluminum is quite profitable, and
                 it tends to subsidize all the crappy curbside materials like
                 glass, paper and plastic.
              \_ As I understand it, recycling metal and plastic makes sense in
                 that the raw materials have to be dug out of the ground.
                 Recycling paper is not an energy-efficency issue, but a forest
                 managment issue.
                 \- if you want to save resources, try to generate less
                    trash and conserve power. poor people recycle without
                    civic programs. e.g. reuse the container your peanut
                    butter came in.
                    \_ In Hong Kong about two to three decades ago, when
                       aluminum cans and 250ml paper packages weren't popular,
                       the milk and beverage companies charged you a bottle fee
                       which is redepted when you returned them.  Then the
                       which was redeemed when you returned them.  Then the
                       companies sanitized the bottles and re-used them with
                       new caps.  I think reusing is more efficient than
                       recycling in terms of energy (and maybe in terms of raw
                       material too -- I don't know if new material is needed
                       in glass recycling like in paper recycling.)
                    \_ Yup.  The three R's in the correct order are: Reduce >
                       Reuse > Recycle.  Yet people think recycling is the best
                       they should do.
                    \_ I hate people leaving three or four machines powered-on
                       when they leave work in the evening.  No I'm not talking
                       about machines that run any automatic jobs late night.
                       \_ Yes! Thank you!
                 "Between September 1994 and June 2004, enthusiastic Fremont
                 residents recycled over 180,191 tons of recyclables and
                 227,216 tons of organics."  Sounds to me this civic program
                 has some real impact.
                 \_ It only has an impact if the "recycled" material is
                    actually put to use.  That more or less means aluminum
                    cans, glass bottles, and newspaper.  -tom
        \_ The waste company in my area collects all paper products (newspaper,
           cardboards, printer paper, ...), plastics #1 - #7, and all metal
           cans in one same collection bin altogether.  How on earth do they
           separate them afterwards?  By hand?
           \_ yes, by hand.  do you live in oakland?  the smaller waste stream
              companies hate this because the bottles break and tiny shards
              of glass get in the paper and lowers the value of material
              they can sell.
              \_ I live in Irvine. They do this, too. I've always wondered
                 about the actual efficiency of their recycling program.
                 I have a vegan friend who goes to great lengths to sort
                 and categorize each and every container he goes through, and
                 then gives them all to the WMOC(Waste Mgmt, Orange County),
                 and I've wondered if he's just wasting his effort.
                   -nivra (not pp)
        \_ Iraqis just started their own recycling program:
  (Yahoo! News)
           \_ See, re-use IS better than recycling!
2005/3/17 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36741 Activity:high
        CNN interview today on Iran with IAEA head ElBaradei.
        North Korea is "an absolutely black hole" -- we know they have the
        plutonium for a bomb, but we don't know if they've built it into a
        bomb yet.  There are no technical hurdles now they have the plutonium.
        -- Iran, on the other hand, we don't think they have the plutonium or
        highly enriched uranium yet, and they have been cooperative.
        As long as we're talking, it's good.  The U.S. joining is wonderful.
        Enrichment should be limited to an "international consortium" --
        everyone needs to agree on an inclusive and fair system, so if a
        country wants enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, they can get it.
        No one's ruling out the possibility of Iran doing enrichment, but Iran
        has built a "confidence deficit" because of its "undeclared program" of
        the last 20 years.
        Translation:  Iran can enrich, but maybe in the future.
        (My interpretation:  Iran will settle for a plan whereby in x years,
        it can operate research centrifuges, after y years, enrich a certain
        amount, z years, enrich more.  There will be many, many folks
        in Dubya's admin that say x, y, and z should be undefined, or Iran
        should never enrich, but my gut feeling is that Dubya will settle,
        after much bargaining, for x >= 5 years, y >= 10 years, z >= 20 years.
        Included with such an agreement will be a ban on heavy-water reactors
        and other reactors that produce fissile material as a by-product.
        Freepers will scream and shout.)
        \_ Considering that Iran has had a (more or less) stable government
           for the last 15 years, I'd be less worried about them than
           Pakistan. The heavy water reactor is troubling, but given Western
           attitudes towards them, I understand Iran's goals. Hard call on
           this one.
           \_ Shrug.  If they proceed seriously with the heavy water reactor
              or enrichment, we at least call sanctions.  It's just a
              question of how many allies are with us at that point.
        \_ The IAEA is worthless.  Prior to GWI they issued even less
           urgent statements about Iraq.  Post GWI we learned Iraq was 18-
           24 months from a a bomb and had up to 20,000 researchers on the
           project.  Iran has been the largest state sponsor of terror, maybe
           after the USSR, over the past 25 years.  It's naive and completely
           irresponsible to trust them, but thanks to Dem. and leftist
           propaganda Iran is painted as a victim of imperialist American
           \_ Name a Democratic defender of Iran.
              \_ Name one who will do anything about Iran.
                 \_ Answer the question.  What Democrat is painting Iran as
                    a victim of imperialist American hegemony?  -tom
                    \_ Uhm, anyone who is Iranian in origin and a democrat?
                       Duhhh? Talk about missing the point. But what can you
                       expect from tom? He walks in and the average IQ of
                       the room goes down a couple of points. -!PP
                       \_ I notice nobody has answer my question. !tom
           \_ Dubya FAA security was worthless pre-9/11.
              Everything changed after 9/11.
              (Hey, the excuse seemed to work for Dubya, who not for the IAEA)
2021/10/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 301 - 450 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming: