Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

Jorge R. Frank wrote:


How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices? Seems to me
increased demand (particularly from China) is doing that.



The rational people have already noticed that. :-)




There's an interesting article here that partially concerns the fact
that OPEC is Big Oil's best friend when it comes right down to it, due
to the fact that a 10% return of profit on a barrel of oil that costs
$75.00 is three times the amount of money that one would make on a
barrel of oil that costs $25.00:
http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=10198
It also discusses how the neocons got taken to the cleaners by Big Oil
in regards to the war in Iraq.

Pat

Dale wrote:

:On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
:
:Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
:ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
:European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
:victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
:higher now, not lower.
:
:Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
:help the planet.

It wouldn't. Kyoto was a bad idea from the start.

:I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a tangible
:return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and seeing oil
:companies recording record profits.

Their percentage profit tends to stay the same over time (same
percentage markup on higher priced crude leads to numerically larger
profits).

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:18:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand. Six bucks a gallon
: : would have the economy seriously in the tank.
:
: I doubt it, though it might get your fat ass on a bicycle...

: a) you have no idea what the size of my derriere is

I don't but your boyfriend probably does, ask him...

: b) you have no idea how much I currently ride a bike

Right, but close to zero, is a good guess...

: c) you have no idea how much I currently drive

....people crazy? The answer is, "lots".

: You are completely without clue, as usual.

But stay one step ahead of you.

Eric

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Jeff Findley" wrote in message
: ...
: And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
: decrease demand in the long run.

: WHich we should be doing anyway, even if gas were fifty cents a gallon, or
: even free.

: I find the concept of putting motor oil in an oil-derived can amusing. And
: wasteful.


You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
Iraq.

Eric

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: "jonathan" wrote in message
: :: :: . ..
: :: :: Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
: :: :: his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
: :: :: Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
: :: :
: :: :: It's about time.
: :: :
: :: :: I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
: :: :
: :: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
: :: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
: :: :
: :: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
: :: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
: :
: :: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
: :
: :We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
: :that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
: ffset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.

: Except it wouldn't. All it would do is perhaps provide a momentary
: blip, at which point you have to REFILL that Reserve again. It's not
: 'overly large', you see...

How large is the national oil reserve in terms of days per US consumption?

: :Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
: :blinded by party.

: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.

I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...

: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
: only the names changed.

You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
like to bet? I take PayPal...

Eric

: --
: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
: truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
: -- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :
: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :
: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :
: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.

: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: this one, right?

Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?

: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :
: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :it's a new concept for you.

: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.

But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
emulating you anytime soon.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

Really? delta theta = 1.22 lambda / aperture right?
and ground distance = Radius x delta-theta
then

lambda = 500e-9 m, and R= 500e3 m and aperture = 6e-2 m then;

ground-distance = 500e3 x 1.22 x 500e-9 /6e-2 = 5.08

So, slipped two digits! Ack, I thought I was getting half a decimeter.


Which makes 2,100 lenses on a small satellite impractical...

Well, if we get down to 1 m resolution that means we have 30 cm
diameter lenses - and 1920 pixels x 1050 pixels is 1.92 km/ x 1.05 km
on the ground at this resolution. A 6 km/sec ground speed, means that
at 60 fps you can scan 10 frames side by side before needing to return
to scan another frame, 1 km further along the orbital track. That's a
swath 19.2 km wide... and your 3 m x 3 m lens array would have the
capacity of having 100 lenses of this size, which is more than enough
to do the 390 km wide swath... you'd only need 20 cameras per
satellite to provide live feed to 1 m resolution.

Probably could do a little better than 1 m resolution - but not 0.1 m
as you correctly pointed out.

If you went to 0.5 m resolution on the ground at 500 km you'd need 60
cm lenses and with a 3 m x 3 m array you'd have 25 of those. With
scanning of the image you'd be able to cover the ground track to a
width of around 390 km imaging the whole thing.

Eric Chomko wrote:


You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
Iraq.



I can certainly see Halliburton/KBR being very keen on the idea,
considering how much money they made off of it.

Pat

Eric Chomko wrote:

You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress?


In regards to that:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs....02/EDUCATION05

Pat

On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:50:26 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Eric Chomko wrote:

You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
Iraq.

I can certainly see Halliburton/KBR being very keen on the idea,
considering how much money they made off of it.

Patrick, when you're agreeing with Eric Chomko, you might want to
consider stepping away from the bar...